Peshawar Nights

Transcript of dialogues between Sunni scholars and Shi'i author, about major topics relating to Shi'ism including the death of the Prophet (s), successorship, companions, infallibility, Muta' (temporary marriage), and the family of the Prophet. Includes a search facility.

Publisher(s):

Category:

Topic Tags:

The Ahlul Bayt DILP team wishes to inform the reader of some important points regarding this digitized text, which represents the English translation of a work originally written in Farsi. Whereas no one can doubt the best intentions of the translator and the publishers in making this title accessible to an English speaking audience, the editing and digitization process of this book (carried out by the DILP Team) has revealed issues in the quality of translation.
Based upon this fact, the DILP team has taken the liberty to make grammatical corrections to make the text more readable and less ambiguous; spelling mistakes and typographical errors have also been corrected and an attempt has been made to improve the highly non-standard use of transliteration of Arabic names and terms. The online text is not an exact reproduction of the original translation.
Users wishing to see the translation as it was published should refer to printed copies available in bookshops. Those who understand are advised to refer directly to the original text.
The Ahlul Bayt DILP Team

Translators' Preface

Recently the non-Muslim world has forcibly learned that Islam is divided into two sects, Shi’as and Sunni, but there is so little material in languages other than Arabic and Persian on the Shi’as side of the issue that real understanding is all but impossible. This is the consequence of the historical accident that Western contact with Islam was almost entirely with Sunni communities, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ottoman Turkey, most of Muslim India, etc.

The present work corrects this imbalance in a most extraordinary way, for the case for Shi'ite Islam is argued and supported virtually entirely from orthodox Sunni sources. The political, juridical, and spiritual legitimacy of the Shi'ite position has been argued, and documented in the English language, and from sources that the West has largely overlooked.

In fact, it is shown here that the most authoritative source for interpreting of the message of the Prophet Muhammad was his cousin and son-in-law, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and the eleven other designated successors after him, who constitute the Imams of the Ithna Asheri (Twelve Imam) Shi’as. At various times in history this fact has been more, or, less recognized by the Muslim world.

As recently as 1959, for example, Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, late Rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, and the Grand Mufti of the Sunni Sect, decreed that in addition to the four Sunni schools of Muslim canon law, Hanafite, Hanbalite, Malakite, and Shafi'ite, the Ja'farite or Shi’as school of law was equally acceptable to Muslims.

A brief account of how this came about at the instigation of Imam Mohamad Chirri, Director of the Islamic Center of North American in Detroit, Michigan, may be found in Chirri's book "The Shiites Under Attack," published by the Center.

* * *

The present work is based on the transcript of a dialogue between several Sunni divines and a 31 year-old Shi'ite scholar, al-`Abd al-Fani Muhammad al-Musawi Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim, of Shiraz, Iran, held over a period of ten nights in Peshawar, India, beginning on 27 January 1927. The dialogues were a model of mutual respect, and in spite of the seriousness of the subject and the presence of an audience of some 200, there was no breach of decorum.

The author refers to himself throughout the book as "Da'i," that is, one who prays for or invokes a blessing upon someone, translated here as "Well-Wisher." His success is indicated by the fact that at the end of the dialogue one of his Sunni opponents and five other dignitaries in the audience publicly acknowledged their conversion to the Shi’as sect.

A condition of the dialogue was that only sources acceptable to both sects would be cited. The dialogue was held in Farsi, commonly understood in the city of Peshawar. The transcript, made by four reporters and published in the newspapers daily, was published in book form in Teheran and soon became a classic authority in the East. The present work is based on the fourth edition, published in Teheran in 1971, the year in which Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim died at the age of 75.1

Although the dialogue was extemporaneous, such was the erudition of Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim Shirazi (whose name means "Prince of Preachers from Shiraz") that the transcript serves as a detailed bibliographic reference to hundreds of Sunni treatises, well known and little known, in which the claims of the Shi'ites are acknowledged. For this reason, many of the citations refer to the author's recognized sect or school, i.e., "Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi," indicating an adherent to the Hanafite Sect, Sibt Ibn Jawzi Shafi'i, of the Shafi'ite sect, and so on.

In spite of the acceptance of the thesis of this book in many parts of the Sunni world, it has also aroused hostility, and unfortunately has inspired misguided and even perverse meddling with the published authorities. In his introduction to the fourth Persian edition, the author writes:

"...it is unfortunate enough that the selfishness of some of the scholars reached the point that their commitment to their own belief overcame them, and they dared to meddle with the great works, supposing that by changing or effacing certain studies the truth would be brought out!”

And since the state of him to whom God Most High has entrusted the security and preservation of the truth (namely al-Wa’adhim, who was near the end of his life at the time of writing tr.) does not allow much time for writing an explanatory introduction to this treatise, confirmation of this mischief will be indicated by one example below.

On page 301 of the third volume of the Commentary, Kashshaf, compiled under the direction of Sheikh Mustafa al-Halabi (2nd edition, 1319 A.H. published by the Main Government Printing House of Amiriah Bulaq of Egypt), verses appear in which Jarullah Zamakhshari, the commentator of the Kashshaf, declared publicly his belief in the legitimacy of the Shi'ites. But in the edition of 1373 A.H. from the printing house Istiqamah bi'l-Qahara the aforementioned poem is not to be found.

This is a sample of the actions of the gentlemen of the Sunnis. By the same token some references which we have indicated in the text of this compendium (i.e., the present book - tr.) are not to be found in the newer editions of those references. This is further indication of what has been said. For this reason some of them have been quoted extensively so that you may read them in this summary."

We have heard that this kind of mischief is continuing today, with new, well-financed expurgated editions of the basic collections of traditions, i.e., Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, etc., being offered unsuspecting libraries, to replace the older, but complete editions!

It is for this reason that the extensive bibliographic references in the original have been retained here at the price of making the book lengthier and less easy to read.2

Thus, the work will find a place in every Department of Near Eastern Studies and every divinity school concerned with ecumenical problems in the modern world. It should be closely studied by serious students of political science and world history who are attempting to understand the emerging presence of Islam in world affairs.

And it should, of course, be of intense interest to all English-speaking Muslims who wish to have confidence in the sources on which they depend for their understanding of Islam.

* * *

Among the topics treated in detail are the events surrounding the death of the Holy Prophet, his attempt to make a written will, which was frustrated by Omar, and the secret election of Abu Bakr, the first two successors or 'caliphs' of the Sunni Muslims. Also treated in detail are the events at Ghadir Khum at which ‘Ali is believed by the Shi’as to have been explicitly designated by the Prophet as his successor. These are matters of incalculable significance to subsequent history and to the alignment of forces today.

Other topics concern misinterpretation of quotations from the Prophet used to argue that any one of his companions was infallible, thus legitimizing the appalling oppression of the people by many subsequent generations of 'successors,' misinterpretation of the presence of Abu Bakr in the Cave with the Prophet during his flight from Mecca to indicate a singular honor; Abu Bakr's unjust seizure of the property of the daughter of the Prophet; the errors and weaknesses of the Caliph Omar, who acknowledged his dependence upon ‘Ali to interpret Islamic law (Shari'at), and his termination of the practice of Muta' (temporary marriage) contrary to the decree of the Prophet, as supported by correct understanding of the Qur'an.

The cruelty the Caliph Uthman showed to distinguished Companions who supported ‘Ali, such as Abu Dharr; and the strange position of the Prophet's young wife, A’ysha, daughter of Abu Bakr, who led a military campaign against ‘Ali, husband of her contemporary, Fatima, the Prophet's own daughter of whom she was fiercely jealous.

Fundamental to all of these is the question of the authority for transmission, and interpretation of Islamic law and science. This was codified among the Sunnis by four principle legalists in the second and third centuries A.H.

Their opinions contradicted each other incredibly on such issues as the lawfulness of wine and eating dog's flesh, and permissibility of marriage to one's own daughter. By contrast, the Shi’as transmission has been singular and consistent - And in reality was often quoted by Sunni authorities in the past, a fact until now ignored, forgotten, or suppressed.

* * *

A word needs to be added regarding the transliteration of Arabic and Persian words. We have attempted to follow a middle course between rigorous replication of the full range of the Arabic and Persian sounds, and avoiding any forms that would be daunting to the non-Arabist. We have tended toward the latter, reasoning that the Arabist will recognize and resolve any ambiguities in the treatment, while the non-Arabist needs forms that are recognizable and pronounceable.

Therefore we have not attempted to differentiate between aleph (long 'a') and fatiha (short 'a'), using 'a' in all cases. Similarly we have shown yah (long 'i') and kasra (short 'i') as 'i' except for a few cases where the words are commonly known one way, or, the other, i.e., 'Sulayman.'

Nor have we attempted to distinguish the two letters, 'sin' and 'sad.' Both are rendered as 's.' 'Tha,' another letter often transliterated as 's,' we have shown as 'th' in, for example, 'Ibn Thabit.' Similarly 'zay' and 'zah' are both shown as 'z.' The 'dhad,' rendered by some as 'z' we have distinguished by using 'dh' as in 'dhikr' or 'Ramadhan,' instead of 'z.'

The Arabic and Persian 'qaf' is given as 'q' to distinguish it from the 'ghayn' which is given as 'gh.' There is no true 'g' sound in Arabic, but when it appears in Persian words it is transliterated as 'g,' while the 'jim' which in Cairo is transliterated as 'g' and by the Encyclopedia of Islam as 'dj' is here simply 'j.'

The subtleties of the Arabic terminal 'ah', which in some contexts is pronounced like English 'ah' and in others like 'at' have been largely effaced, the rendering being usually simply 'a'. In combination and in certain plurals, however, 'at' is retained.

The Persian 'ezafeh', which is used to indicate possession by linking the possessor and the possessed (the Persians would say Ibn al-Malik to indicated the son of the king, whereas the Arabs would say Ibni'l-Malik) is difficult to handle. It is usually not written, but understood, and it is not readily apparent in titles of works whether they are in fact Persian or Arabic.

For example, 'Kifayatu't-Talib fi Manaqib al-’Ali Ibn Abi Talib' appears to refer to a work in Arabic 'Kifayatu't-Talib' (Intensive Studies) on the subject of the 'Manaqib al-’Ali', i.e., the virtues of ‘Ali. This 'ezafeh' is variously given as 'i' or 'e', coupling either words with hyphens or merely joined to the first with or without a hyphen.

Thus you will see 'Ahlul Bayt' (the people of the house, referring specifically to the immediate family of the Prophet through his daughter, Fatima, and her husband, ‘Ali), and 'Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha,' 'Explanation of the Eloquent Sermons' (by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) regarding the addresses of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

* * *

Many of the sources quoted are obscure, not available in English, and often referred to in various ways by scholars, and sometimes even by the author, Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim. Where possible, these problems have been resolved, and the name of the work or author commonly used by scholars is given.

Although we have worked from the Persian edition, we would like to acknowledge the help of an English translation published in 1977 by the Peermahomed Ebrahim Trust in Karachi. A similar debate, but by exchange of letters, was published in 1936 and reissued under the title of 'The Right Path' (originally 'al-Muraja'at) by Peermahomed Ebrahim Trust in 1972.

A revised edition was issued by Zahra Publications, Blanco, TX in 1986. This exchange began in 1911 between the Sunni head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo and an eminent Shi’as scholar from Lebanon, explaining the Shi’as beliefs. Its publication no doubt laid the groundwork for the eventual formal recognition by Al-Azhar University in 1959 of the Shi’as Ja'farite school of jurisprudence, identified with the Shi'ite Imam Ja'far Sadiq, mentioned above.

May Allah forgive our errors, and accept our intention, and bless Muhammad and his family!

1. The death of Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim in 1971 is mentioned by Michael M.J. Fischer in Iran - From Religious Dispute to Revolution - p.178, Harvard University Press 1980.

2. For instance, see Tahrif! Investigating Distortions in Islamic Texts for a few documented examples of such changes in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Tirmidhi, and other books [Ed.]

The Book

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim

Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim Shirazi, an eminent scholar of Iran, visited India in 1927 A.D (1345 A.H.) when he was 30 years old. He was given a rousing reception everywhere he went. People benefited from his knowledge of tradition, history, and commentary on the Holy Qur'an.

He was persuaded to enter into a religious debate on 23rd Rajab, 1345 A.H., with people of another belief in Peshawar, in what was then India and is today Pakistan. The discussion took place on ten successive nights.

The two principal participants from the opposite side were renowned scholars of Kabul, Hafiz Muhammad Rashid, and Sheikh Abdu's-Salam. Four reporters recorded the discussions in the presence of approximately 200 people (Shi’as and Sunni Muslims).

Local newspapers published these accounts each following morning. Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim Shirazi compiled thenewspaper accounts of the discussions in a book in Persian, published in Teheran as Shabhaye-Peshawar, or Peshawar Nights. The following is a translation of that book.

The First Session, Thursday night, 23rd Rajab, 1345 A.H.

Hafiz Muhammad Rashid, Sheikh Abdu's-Salam, Sayyid Abdu'l-Hayy, and other scholars of that region were present. The discussion began in the presence of a large gathering. In the magazines and newspapers, they referred to the writer as "Qibla-o-Ka'ba," but in these pages I have referred to myself as "Well-Wisher" and to Hafiz Muhammad Rashid as "Hafiz."

Hafiz: We are very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the basic points on which we differ. We should first decide how we should proceed.

Well-Wisher: I am willing to participate in discussions on the condition that we cast aside all pre-conceived ideas, and discuss matters reasonably, like brothers.

Hafiz: I may also be permitted to make one condition: that our discussions should be based on the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an.

Well-Wisher: This condition is not acceptable since the Holy Qur'an is so concise that its deep significance must be interpreted through reference to other facts and hadith.

Hafiz: Right. This is sensible, but it is also necessary that reference be made to hadith and events that are based on indisputable evidence. We should refrain from referring to doubtful sources.

Well-Wisher: Agreed. For a man like me, who is proud enough to claim relationship with the Prophet, it is not fair to go against the examples set forth by my ancestor, the Prophet of Islam. He has been addressed in the Holy Qur'an as follows:

"And, most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality." (68:4)

It is also unbecoming to act against the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an which says:

"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner...." (16:125)

Hafiz: Excuse me; you refer to your relationship with the Holy Prophet. It is commonly known, but I ask that you let me know your genealogy so that I may know how your ancestral line reaches the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: My ancestral line reaches the Prophet through Imam Musa Kazim as follows: Muhammad, son of ‘Ali Akbar (Ashrafu'l-Wa’adhim), son of Isma'il Mujtahidal-Wa'iz, son of Ibrahim, son of Salih, son of Abi ‘Ali Muhammad,son of ‘Ali (known as Mardan), son of Abi'l-Qasim Muhammad Taqi, son of (Maqbulu'd-din) Husain, son of Abi ‘Ali Hasan, son of Muhammad ibn Fathullah, son of Ishaq, son of Hashim, son of Abi Muhammad, son of Ibrahim, son of Abi'l-Fityan, son of Abdullah, son of Hasan, son of Ahmad (Abu Tayyib), son of Abi ‘Ali Hasan, son of Abu Ja'far Muhammad al-Hairi (Nazil al-Kirman), son of Ibrahim Az-Zarir (knownas Mujab), son of Amir Muhammad al-Abid, son of Imam Musa Kazim, son of Imam Muhammad Baqir, son of Imam ‘Ali Zainu'l-Abidin, son of Imam Husain, son of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali binAbi Talib.

Hafiz: This line of descent reaches the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali (may Allah bless him) although you have said that it ends with the Holy Prophet. Infact, with this genealogy, you should call yourself among the relations of the Holy Prophet and not among his direct descendants. A descendant is one who is directly linked with the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Our ancestral line reaches the Prophet through Bibi Fatima Zahra, the mother of Imam Husain. I don't understand why you insist so much on this point.

Hafiz: I think I am misunderstood. It is my point of view that descent is recognized from the male side only. I quote an Arabic couplet: "My sons, grandsons, and daughters are from me, but my daughter's sons are not from me." If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

Well-Wisher: There is strong evidence, both from the Holy Qur'an and from authentic hadith, to establish my point.

Hafiz: Please relate it so that we may understand.

Well-Wisher: While you we’re speaking just now, I recalled a discussion between Harun ar-Rashid, the Abbasid caliph, and our Imam Musa Kazim on this topic. The Imam gave such a convincing reply that the caliph himself accepted it.

Hafiz: I would like to hear about that discussion.

Well-Wisher: Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali, entitled Sheikh Saduq, in the fourth century A.H. inhis Uyun al-Akbar ar-Riza (Major Sources for Riza), and Abu Mansur Ibn ‘Ali Tabarsi, in his Ehtijajj (Supports) give a detailed account of the conversation that took place between Harun ar-Rashid and Imam Musa Ja'far in the caliph's court.

The caliph asked the Imam,"How can you claim that you are a descendant of the Holy Prophet? The Prophet Muhammad had no descendant. It is acknowledged that descendants are from the male side and not from the female side. You belong to the generation of his daughter." The Imam recited verses 84-85 from Chapter VI of the Holy Qur'an:

“And, We gave to him Isaac and Jacob; each did We guide, and Noah did We guide before, and of his descendants David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Aaron; and thus do We reward those who do good. And, Zakariyya and John and Jesus and Elias; every one was of the good." (6:84-85)

The Imam asked the caliph: "Who was Jesus's father?" Harun replied that Jesus had no father. The Imam said: "There was no one, and yet Allah included Jesus in the progeny of the prophets through Mary. Similarly, He has included us in the progeny of the Holy Prophet through our ancestor Bibi Fatima."

Moreover, Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, in his Tafsir al-Kabir (Great Commentary), Bk IV, P. 124, Problem V, says regarding this verse that the verse proves that Hasan and Husain are the descendants of the Prophet of Islam. Since in this verse God has verified Jesus as a descendant of Abraham, and Jesus had no father, this relationship is from the side of the mother.

In the same manner, Hasan and Husain are truly the descendants of the Prophet. Imam Musa Kazim asked Harun if he wanted further proof. The caliph asked the Imam to continue.The Imam read verse 60 from Chapter III, "Aal-’Imran,"of the Holy Qur'an:

"But, whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: come, let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves, and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars." (3:61)

He continued, saying that no one has ever claimed that on the occasion of the spiritual contest (Mubahala) against the Christians of Najran that the Prophet took with him anyone except ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain. It follows, therefore that "selves" (anfusana) means ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. "Women"(nisa'ana) means Fatima and "sons" (abna'ana) means Hasan and Husain whom Allah has identified as the Prophet's own sons.

Upon hearing this argument, Harun exclaimed, "Bravo, O Abu'l-Hasan." Clearly, this reasoning proves that Hasan and Husain are the sons of the Prophet and that the ‘Sa'dat Fatima’ (descendants of Bibi Fatima) are of the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, one of your greatest scholars, in his ‘Sharh-i-Nahju'l-Balagha’ (Commentary on the Peak of Eloquence [writingsof Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali]), and Abu Bakr Razi in his commentary, have cited the same verse, arguing that Hasan and Husain are, from the side of their mother, the sons of the HolyProphet in the same way that Allah in the Holy Qur'an has included Christ in the progeny of Abraham from the side of his mother, Mary.

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his book Kifayatu't-Talib, and Ibn Hajar Makki on pages 74 and 93 of ‘Sawa’iq Muhariqa’ from Tabrani and Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, and Khatib Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’ from Ibn Abbas - all relate that the Prophet said: "Allah created the progeny of every Prophet from his own generation, but my progeny was created in the generation of ‘Ali."

"These, my two sons, are two flowers of this world, and both of them are Imams (leaders), whether they are Imams openly, or, silently sitting at home.”And, Sheikh Sulayman Hanafi, in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, devotes Chapter 57 to this topic, and cites many hadith from his own learned men, like Tabrani, Hafiz Abdu'l-Aziz Ibn Abi Shaiba, Khatib al-Baghdadi Hakim, Baihaqi, Baghawi and Tabari - all relating in slightly differing versions that Hasan and Husain are the sons of the Prophet.

Towards the end of the same Chapter, Abu Salih writes: HafizAbdu'l-Aziz Ibn Al-Akhzar, Abu Nu'aim, Tabari, Ibn Hajar Makkion page 112 of ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, from Muhammad Ibn Yusuf GanjiShafi'i at the end of Part I after 100 Chapters of Kifayatu't-Talib, and Tabari in the narration of the life of Imam Hasan relate that the second caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, said:

"I heard the Prophet say that on the Day of Judgement every ancestry will be disconnected except my generation. Every generation of a daughter is from the father's side except the generation of Fatima, which is connected with me. I am their father, and ancestor."

Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i, in his book Kitabu'l-Ittihafbi Hubbi'l-Ashraf, quoted this hadith from Baihaqi and Darqutni from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, and he from his father, on the occasion of the wedding of Umm Kulthum.

And, Jalalu'd-din Suyuti quoting from Tabrani in his ‘Ausat’, has related from Caliph ‘Umar and Sayyid Abu Bakr Ibn Shahabu'd-din Alawi on pages 39-42 of Chapter III of ‘Rishfatu's-sadi min Bahra Faza'il Bani Nabiu'l-Hadi’ (printed in Maktabi A'lamiyya, Egypt in the year 1303 A.H.), proving that the descendants of Fatima are of the progeny of the Prophet of Islam.

Hence, the couplet that you quoted has no force in the face of all this contrary evidence. Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his "Kifayatu't Talib," proves that the sons of the Prophet's daughter are the sons of the Holy Prophet. Our ancestral line goes back to Imam Husain; we are, therefore, descendants of the Prophet.

Hafiz: Your argument is reasonable and convincing. The people dispersed for the Isha prayer.

During the recess Nawab Abdu'l-Qayum Khan, who belongs to a noble family of the ‘Sunnis’, asked permission to ask Well-Wisher some questions.

Nawab: Why do the Shi’as combine the prayers of Zuhr and Asr and Maghrib and Isha? This is not in keeping with the practice of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: In the first place, among your own learned men, there is much difference of opinion concerning this issue. Secondly, you say that we go against the practice of the Prophet. Here you are mistaken since the Holy Prophet used to offer these prayers in both ways, sometimes separately, and sometimes together. Nawab Sahib, turning to his learned men, asked them if it was true that the Prophet offered the prayers in both ways.

Hafiz: He did, but only when he was on a journey, or, when there was some other hindrance, like rain. Otherwise, when he was at home, he always offered his prayers separately.

Well-Wisher: It is recorded in your own ‘hadith’ that the Prophet used to offer prayers separately as well as combined at home, and without any obstruction. Many hadith confirm this fact. Muslim Ibn Hajjaj in his Sahih, in the Chapter "Jam'a Baina's-salatain fi'l-Hazar," says that Ibn Abbas said:

"The Prophet used to say Zuhr and Asr as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers jointly without being constrained to do so, or, when he was at home." Again Ibn Abbas narrated:"We said eight rak'ats of Zuhr and Asr, and later seven rak'ats of Maghrib and Isha prayers jointly with the Holy Prophet.

"The same hadith’ has been related by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, Part 1, Page 221. Similarly, Imam Muslim quotes a number of ‘hadith’ concerning this issue. He quotes Abdullah Ibn Shaqiqas having said that one day Abdullah Ibn Abbas was reading an address after the Asr prayers until the sun set and the stars were visible.

People cried, "Prayers, Prayers," but Ibn Abbas paid no heed to them. Then one of the Bani Tamimi shouted "Prayers, Prayers." Ibn Abbas then said: "You remind me of the ‘Sunna’, but I myself have seen the Holy Prophet combine Zuhr and Asr as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers."

Abdullah ibn Shaqiq said that he felt uncertainty about these words and went to Abu Huraira to ask him about it. He verified what Ibn Abbas had said. Through another chain of narrators, Abdullah ibn Shaqiq has narrated from Aqil that once Abdullah ibn Abbas spoke to the people from the pulpit.

He remained there so long that darkness fell. When someone shouted thrice, "Prayer, Prayer, Prayer," Abdullah Ibn Abbas became annoyed and said: "Woe be to you. You dare remind me of prayer, even though during theHoly Prophet's days we used to combine Zuhr with Asr as well as Maghrib with Isha prayers."

Zarqani in Sharhe Mawatta' of Imam Malik, Part I, in the Chapter of "Jama'a Baina's-Salatain,"p. 263, states, "Nisa'i related through Amru Ibn Haram from Abi Sha'atha that Ibn Abbas said his Zuhr and Asr prayers as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers jointly in Basra without any time lag, or, action between them. He said that the Holy Prophet offered his prayers in the same way."

Also, Muslim in ‘Sahih’ and ‘Malikin Mawatta'’, Chapter "Jam'a Baina's-salatain", and Imam Hanbal in Musnad quotes Ibn Abbas through Sa'id Ibn Jabir that the Holy Prophet offered his Zuhr and Asr prayers together in Medina without being constrained to do so by fear, or, bad weather.

Abu Zubair said he asked Abu Sa'id why the Prophet combined the two prayers. Sa'id said that he too asked Ibn Abbas the same question. Ibn Abbas replied that he combined the two prayers so that his followers might not be put to undue hardship and suffering.

Also, in many other ‘hadith’, Ibn Abbas is related to have said that the Holy Prophet of Islam combined Zuhr and Asr as well as Maghrib and Isha prayers without being constrained to do so. These hadith in your ‘Sahih’ and in many other authentic books prove the permissibility of the combination of the two prayers, both at home and during travel.

Hafiz: There is no such quotation of hadith in ‘Sahih Bukhari.

Well-Wisher: Because all the authors of ‘Sahih’, like Muslim, Nisa'i, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and exponents of the Sahihain, of Muslim, Mubhari, and other great ‘Sunni’ scholars have quoted these things, this is sufficient for us to win our point.

But in fact, Bukhari, too, has recorded these ‘hadith’ in his ‘Sahih’, but he has deceitfully put them away from their proper place, the section concerning the combination of two prayers.

If you go through the Chapters "Bab al-Ta'akhiru'z-zuhr li'l-AsrMin Kitabe Mawaqitu's-salat" and "Bab al-Dhikru'l-Ishawa'l-Atma" and "Bab al-Waqtu'l-Maghrib," you will find all these ‘hadith’ there. Recording these hadith under the heading, "Permission and Authorization to Combine Two Prayers" proves that it is the common belief of learned men of the two sects. The authenticity of these hadith has already been acknowledged in the books of ‘Sahih’.

Accordingly, Allama Nuri in ‘Sharhe Sahih’ Muslim, Asqalani, Qastalani, Zakariyya al-Razi, in the commentaries that they have written on ‘Sahih’ Bukhari, Zarqani in his commentary on the Mawatta' of Malik, and others related these ‘hadith’. After quoting the ‘hadith’ of Ibn Abbas, they acknowledged their authenticity and admitted that these ‘hadith’ are proofs of the acceptability of combining two prayers.

Nawab: How is it possible that these ‘hadith’ have been put into practice since the time of the Holy Prophet, but learned men have adopted a different path?

Well-Wisher: This situation is not confined to this topic alone. You will see many such examples later. In this matter, ‘Sunni’ scholars of jurisprudence, apparently without much serious thought, or, for other reasons which I do not understand, have given unintelligible explanations contradicting these ‘hadith’.

For instance, they say that perhaps these ‘hadith’ refer to situations involving fear, danger, rains, or, winds. Some of your older scholars, like Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, and some other jurists of Medina gave the same explanation. This, despite the fact that the ‘hadith’ of Ibn Abbas clearly says that the two prayers were offered without the constraint of fear, or, the possibility of rainfall.

Others have suggested that perhaps the sky was overcast, and those offering prayers did not know the time. Perhaps, when they finished their Zuhr prayers, the clouds dispersed, and they saw that it was time for Asr prayers.

So, they had to offer Zuhr and Asr prayers together. I don't think a more unlikely explanation could be found. Perhaps these interpreters did not care to think that the person offering prayers was the Holy Prophet of Islam (S). Clouds did not mean to him what they might to others. He understood all causes and effects.

Apart from the fact that this explanation is unconvincing, the combining of Maghrib and Isha prayers rejects their explanation. At that time clouds have no relevance to this question.

As we said: the ‘hadith’ of Ibn Abbas clearly states that his address continued so long that the audience repeatedly cried, “prayers, prayers." They reminded him that the stars had appeared and it was time for prayers. But, he purposely delayed the Maghrib prayer so that he might offer both Maghrib and Isha prayers together. Abu Huraira also verified this action, saying that the Prophet also acted in the same manner. Such spurious explanations, inlight of clear guidance, are regrettable.

Your own learned men reject them. Sheikhu'l-Islam Ansari, in his ‘Tuhfatu'l-Bari fiSharhe Sahihu'l-Bukhari’ in the Chapter "Salatu'z-zuhr ma'l-Asrwa'l-Maghrib ma'al Isha," page 292, Part II, and similarly, Allama Qastalani, on page 293, Part II of ‘Irshadu's-Sari fi SharheSahihu'l-Bukhari’, as well as other exponents of Sahih Bukhari admit that this kind of explanation is against the obvious meaning of the ‘hadith’, and that to insist that every ritual prayer be offered separately is a groundless requirement.

Nawab: Then how did this controversy arise so that the two sects of Muslims are after the blood of each other, and condemn each other's actions?

Well-Wisher: You say that the two sects of Muslims are inimical to each other, but I disagree. We Shi’as do not look down upon any of the learned men, or, commonpeople of our brothers, the ‘Sunnis’. We regret that propaganda of the ‘Kharijis’, the ‘Nasibis’, and the ‘Umayyads’ have affected the hearts of some people. Unfortunately, some ‘Sunnis’ regard their Shi’as brothers (who are one with them as regards the Qibla (Ka'ba), the Holy Book (Qur'an), and the Prophet as Rafizis (dissenters), idolaters, and infidels.

As for your question regarding how this difference originated, perhaps we can discuss this in later meetings. Concerning the saying of prayers separately, or, together, ‘Sunni’ legal scholars have recorded ‘hadith’ which permit the offering of Zuhr with Asr, and Maghrib with Isha prayers as a matter of ease, comfort, or, safety. I do not know why some do not consider it permissible to offer the two prayers together in the absence of any obstruction.

Some authorities, like Abu Hanifa, and his adherents, forbid it under any circumstances, whether there is any obstruction or not; or whether the prayers are said during travel, or, at home. The ‘Shafi'ites’, ‘Malikites’, and ‘Hanbalites’, with all of their differences in essential and non-essential tenets, have permitted the combining of the prayers during a lawful journey. But, the ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’, in obedience to the Holy Imams and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, have unconditionally permitted the offering of prayers together.

Of course the offering of prayers at the time specified for each ritual prayer is preferable to praying in one interval, as has been clearly stated in expository books dealing with problems of religious performance written by ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’. Since people are often busy with their own affairs, and have their own cares and anxieties, they fear they might miss their prayers. Hence, for their own convenience, and to avoid hardship, and suffering, the Shi’as say their two prayers in one interval, whether early, or, late, during the appointed time.

Now, I think this much is sufficient to enlighten our ‘Sunni’ brothers who look at us with indignation. Perhaps we can return to our discussions about the fundamentals, after which the questions concerning practice will be solved.

Hafiz Sahib asked ‘Allama Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim’ to tell him how his ancestors migrated from the Hijaz to Iran. He gave a history of his ancestors who were murdered in Shiraz on the order of the Abbasid King. Their mausoleums still attract pilgrims from distant places.

Notable among them are Sayyid Amir Muhammad Abid, Sayyid Amir Ahmad (Shah Charagh), and Sayyid Alau'd-din Husain, all sons of Imam Musa Kazim. The details concerning his family are omitted.

Mention was also made of the discovery of the sacred grave of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali.

Hafiz: But, in what state was the grave of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, discovered 150 years after his death?

Well-Wisher: Because Umayyad oppression was so intense during ‘Ali's later life, he stipulated in his will that his body should be laid in a grave secretly at night, and that no trace of the grave should be left. Only a few of his close companions and his sons attended the burial.

On the morning of the 2lst of Ramadhan when he was to be buried, two conveyances were prepared. One was instructed to go to Mecca, the other to Medina. That is why for years his grave remained unknown, except to a few companions and his own sons.

Hafiz: Why was the grave's location kept a secret?

Well-Wisher: Probably out of fear of the irreligious Umayyads. They were particularly inimical to the members of the progeny of the Prophet. They could have desecrated the grave.

Hafiz: But, is it possible that a Muslim, even though an enemy, might violate the grave of a brother Muslim?

Well-Wisher: Have you studied the history of the Umayyads? From the day this wretched dynasty came to power the door of oppression was opened among Muslims. Good Heavens! What atrocities they committed! What blood they shed, and what honors they spoiled! With deep shame, your eminent scholars recorded their many crimes. Allama Maqrizi Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad ibn ‘Ali Shafi'i recorded the heart-rending atrocities of the Umayyads in his book ‘Annaza' Wa't-takhasum fima baina Bani Hashim wa Bani Umayya’.

As examples of what they were capable of, I will cite only two events: the martyrdom of Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn Husain, known as Zaid Shahid (i.e., the Martyr) and the martyrdom of his son, Yahya. Historians of both Shi’as and ‘Sunnis’ recorded that when Hisham ibn Abdu'l-Malik became the caliph, he committed many atrocities.

With regard to the Bani Hashim, he was particularly cruel. At last, Zaid ibn ‘Ali, the son of Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, and well known as a great scholar and a pious theologian, went to see the caliph to seek redress for the grievances of the Bani Hashim.

But, as soon as Zaid arrived, the caliph, instead of greeting him as a direct descendant of the Holy Prophet, abused him with such abominable language that I cannot repeat it. Because of this disgraceful treatment, Zaid left Syria for Kufa, where he raised an army against the Bani Umayyad. The governor of Kufa, Yusuf ibn ‘Umar Thaqafi, came out with a huge army to face him. Zaid recited the following war poem:

"Disgraceful life and honorable death: both are bitter morsels, but if one of them must be chosen, my choice is honorable death."

Although he fought bravely, Zaid was killed in the battle. His son, Yahya, took his body from the field, and buried him away from the city near the river bank, causing the water to flow over it. However, the grave was discovered and, under Yusuf's orders, the body was exhumed, Zaid's head was cut off and sent to Hisham in Syria. In the month of Safar, 121 A.H., Hisham had the sacred body of this descendant of the Prophet placed on the gallows entirely naked. For four years the sacred body remained on the gallows.

Thereafter, when Walid Ibn Yazid ibn Abdu'l-Malik ibn Marwan became caliph in 126 A.H., he ordered that the skeleton be taken down from the gallows, burnt, and the ashes scattered to the wind.

This accursed man committed a similar atrocity to the body of Yahya ibn Zaid of Gurgan. This noble man also opposed the oppression of the Bani Umayya. He too was martyred on the battlefield.

His head was sent to Syria and, as in the case of his revered father, his body was hung on the gallows for six years. Friend and foe alike wept at the sight. Waliu'd-din Abu Muslim Khorasani, who had risen against the Bani Umayya on behalf of Bani Abbas, took his body down and buried it in Gurgan, where it is a place of pilgrimage.

In view of the misdeeds of this accursed dynasty, the body of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali was buried during the night, and no trace of his grave was left. The grave remained virtually unknown until the days of Caliph Harun ar-Rashid. One day Harun came hunting in the locality of Najaf, where deer lived in large numbers.

When the hounds chased the deer, they took refuge on the mound of Najaf, a small hill which the hounds would not ascend. Several times, when the hounds retreated, the deer would come down, but when the hounds again leapt at them, the deer took refuge on the mound.

Understanding that there was a reason for the hounds' behavior, Harun sent his men to inquire in Najaf. They brought an old man to him and the caliph asked about the secret of why the hounds did not climb up on the mound.

The old man replied that he knew the secret, but that he was afraid to disclose it. The caliph guaranteed him safety, and the man told him: "Once I came here with my father, who went on the mound and offered prayers there. When I asked him what was there, he said that they had come there with Imam Ja'far Sadiq for a visit (Ziyarat). The Imam had said that this was the sacred grave of his revered grandfather, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, and that it would shortly become known.

"At the caliph's behest that place was dug up, and the signs of a grave became apparent along with a tablet with an inscription in Syriac, meaning: "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This grave has been prepared by the Prophet Noah for ‘Ali, the Vicegerent of Muhammad, 700 years before the Deluge."

Caliph Harun paid respects to the place, and ordered the restoration of the earth. He then performed two rak'ats of prayer. He wept much and laid himself on the grave. Thereafter, on his orders, the whole matter was disclosed to Imam Musa Kazim at Medina. The Imam confirmed that the grave of his revered grandfather, Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, was at that place.

Harun then decreed that a stone building be erected over Commander of the Faithful's sacred grave, which came to be known as ‘Hajar Haruni’- the stone structure built by Harun. In due course, the news spread, and Muslims visited the Holy place. Ibrahim Mujab, the great, great grandfather of ‘Sultanu'l-Wa’adhim’ (Well-Wisher) also left Shiraz for this Holy visit, and after performing the Ziarat, died in Karbala. He was buried near the sacred grave of his great grandfather, Imam Husain. His grave is located in the Northwestern corner of his sacred mausoleum, and is visited regularly by his admirers.

Hafiz: Despite these conclusive remarks, I think that the grave of ‘Ali (may Allah bless him) is not located in Najaf. Scholars differ on this point. Some say it is in the State House in Kufa; some say it is in the Qibla of the Central Mosque of Kufa; some say that it is in the gate known as ‘Bab al-Kinda’ of the Mosque of Kufa; some hold that it is in Rahba in Kufa; still others say it is beside the grave of Fatima in Baqi.

In our Afghanistan, too, there is a place near Kabul known as the Mausoleum of ‘Ali. According to one account, the sacred body of ‘Ali was placed in a box, and laid on the back of a camel and sent toward Medina. A party of men snatched the box, believing it contained valuables. On opening it, they saw the sacred body, brought it to Kabul, and buried it at this place. That is why people revere this place.

Well-Wisher: These differences arose because of the details of his will, which stipulated that the arrangements for his burial obfuscate his burial place. It is related from Imam Ja'far Sadiq that at the time of his death, the Commander of the Faithful told his son, Imam Husain, that after burying him in Najaf, he should prepare four graves for him in four different places: in the Mosque of Kufa, in Rahba, in the house of Ju'da Hira, and in Ghira. The ‘Shi’as’ agree that his sacred grave is in Najaf.

Whatever they have learned from the ‘Ahlul Bayt is authentic. The “people of the house” know best about what relates to the house.

I really wonder at your scholars, who have neglected the sayings of the progeny of the Holy Prophet in every matter. They did not inquire about the location of the grave of the father from his own sons in order to learn the truth. It is certain that the children know more about the grave of their father than others do.

If any of these current theories had been correct, the Holy Imams would have informed their followers of it. But, they have confirmed the location in Najaf, visited the place themselves, and have exhorted their adherents to visit it. Sibt Ibn Jauzi has, in his ‘Tadhkira’, mentioned these differences.

He says: "The sixth view is that it is in Najaf at the well known place, which is commonly visited. To all appearances, this is the correct view." Similarly, your other scholars, such as ‘Khatib-e Khawarizmi’ in ‘Manaqib’, Muhammad ibn Shafi'i in ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in ‘Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha’, Firuzabadi in his lexicon, ‘Qamus’, under the word Najaf, and others, have held that the Commander of the Faithful's grave is located in Najaf.

Second Session, Friday night, 20th Rajab, 1345 A.H.

Hafiz: I was greatly impressed by your instructive conversation concerning your ancestral lineage. I admit that you are a descendant of the Holy Prophet but, I wonder how a man of your learning could be under the degrading influence of the enemies.

Having left the ways of your illustrious ancestors, you have adopted the ways of the unbelievers of Iran. What I mean by the foolish ways of the enemies are those innovations which have entered Islam through the Israelites.

Hafiz: The Israelites' whole history is stained with deceit. Abdullah Ibn Saba' San'a'i, Ka'abu'l-Ahbar, Wahhab Ibn Munabba, and others professed Islam, and pretended to accept the ‘hadith’ of the Holy Prophet and thus, created confusion among the Muslims.

The third caliph, Uthman Ibn Affan, pursued them, and they fled to Egypt, where they established a sect known as the ‘Shi’as’. They spread false reports about Caliph Uthman, and fabricated ‘hadith’ to the effect that the Holy Prophet had appointed ‘Ali as caliph, and Imam. With the formation of this sect, there was widespread violence, which led to the murder of Caliph Uthman, and the assumption of the caliphate by ‘Ali.

A group inimical to Uthman stood high in ‘Ali's favor. During the caliphate of the Umayyads, when the people of the family of ‘Ali and his adherents were being killed, this group went into hiding.

Still, some people, like Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dharr Ghifari, and Ammar Yasir, supported the cause of ‘Ali. This struggle continued until the time of Harun ar-Rashid, and especially his son, Ma'mun ar-Rashid Abbasi, who subdued his brother with the help of the Iranians, and they then spread the idea that ‘Ali was preferable to other caliphs.

The Iranians, hostile to the Arabs who had conquered them, found an opportunity to challenge the Arabs in the name of religion.

The ‘Shi’as’ became powerful during the period of the Dailamites and the Safavid Kings, and were finally recognized. They were then formally known as the ‘Shi’as’ sect. Iranian ‘Zoroastrians still call themselves Shi’as.

In short, the ‘Shi’as’ sect was founded by a Jew, Abdullah Ibn Saba. Otherwise, there would have been no such word as ‘Shi’as’ in Islam. Your grandfather, the Holy Prophet, hated the word. In fact, the ‘Shi’as’ sect is a part of the Jewish faith.

I wonder why you left the just ways of your ancestors and followed the path of your predecessors, who adopted Jewish ways. You should have followed the Holy Qur'an and the example of your grandfather, the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: It is unusual for a learned man like you to base his arguments on utterly false grounds. There is no sense in your associating the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba with the Shi’as. Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew, and, according to ‘Shi’as’ sources, a hypocrite and is harshly condemned. If for some time he appeared to be a friend of ‘Ali, what connection did he have with the Shi’as?

If a thief puts on the attire of a learned man, mounts the pulpit, and injures the cause of Islam, should you be averse to learning and call learned men thieves?

In fact, ‘Shi’as’ Muslims have never been merely a political party. They have always comprised a religious sect, which was not founded, as you say, in the time of Caliph Uthman, but was propagated through the words and commands of the Prophet during his own time. While you argue on the basis of the concocted evidence of enemies, I will cite for you verses from the Holy Qur'an, and records of your own authors to establish the true position.

Well-Wisher: ‘Shi’as’, as you know, literally means "follower." One of your greatest ‘ulama’, Firuzabadi, in his ‘Qamusu'l-Lughat’, says, "The name 'Shi’as' commonly means every person who is a friend of ‘Ali and his ‘Ahlul Bayt’.

This name is peculiar to them." Exactly the same meaning is given by Ibn Athir in Nihayatu'l-Lughat. According to your own commentaries, the word Shi’as means "follower of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib" and was used in this way during the time of the Prophet. In fact, it was the Prophet himself who introduced the word Shi’as’ as meaning "follower of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib."

And, this word was used by the Holy Prophet about whom Allah says: "Nor, does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4) The Prophet called the followers of ‘Ali "The Shi’as", “the delivered", and “the rescued."

Hafiz: Where is such a thing? We have never seen it.

Well-Wisher: We have seen it, and we do not think it proper to conceal facts. Allah condemned concealers and called them companions of Hell. Allah says,

"Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, those it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too)." (2:159)

"Surely those who conceal any part of the Book that Allah has revealed and take for it a small price, they eat nothing but fire into their bellies, and Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor, will He purify them, and they shall have a painful chastisement." (2:170)

Hafiz: If we know the truth and conceal it, I agree we deserve condemnation as revealed in these Holy verses.

Well-Wisher: I hope you keep these two verses in mind so that habit or, intolerance may not overpower you. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani is one of the most distinguished of your narrators of ‘hadith’. Ibn Khallikan has praised him in his ‘Wafayatu'l-A'ayan'’ as one of the great Huffaz (men of wisdom), and one of the most learned narrators of ‘hadith’.

He also states that the ten volumes of his ‘Hilyatu'l-Auliya’ are among the most instructive of books. Salahu'd-din Khalil ibn Aibak Safdi writes in his ‘Wafiy bi'l-Wafiyat’ about him, "The crown of narrators of hadith, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim, was the foremost in knowledge, piety, and honesty.

He enjoyed a high position in the narration and understanding of ‘hadith’. His best work is Hilyatu'l-Auliya in 10 volumes, consisting of derivations from the two Sahihs." Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Khatib praises him in Rijali'l-Mishkati'l-Masabih, saying that he is among the leading narrators of ‘hadith’ whose narrations are whollyutterly reliable.

In short, this respected scholar and traditionist, the pride of your ‘ulama’, relates from Abdullah ibn Abbas through his own chain of narrators in his book ‘Hilyatu'l-Auliya’ relates: "When the following verse of the Holy Qur'an was revealed:

'(As for) those who believe and do good, surely they are the best of men. Their reward with their Lord is gardens of perpetuity beneath which rivers flow, abiding there-in for ever. Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him; that is for him who fears his Lord.' (98:7-8),

the Holy Prophet, addressing ‘Ali, said: 'O ‘Ali, the best of creatures (Khairu'l-bariyya) in this Holy verse refers to you, and your followers (‘Shi’as’). On the Day of Resurrection, you and your followers (‘Shi’as’) shall attain such a position that Allah will be pleased with you, and you will be pleased with Him.'"

Based on the testimony of narrators reaching back to Yazid Ibn Sharafi'l-Ansari, the scribe of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, that ‘Ali said that at the time of the Prophet's death, the Prophet rested on ‘Ali's chest and said:

"You have heard the Holy verse:

'Those who believe and do good deeds, it is they who are the best of creatures.' (98:7)

These are your ‘Shi’as’. My and your meeting place shall be at the fountain of Kauthar (in Paradise). When all created beings assemble for reckoning, your face will be bright, and you will be identified on that day as the leader of the bright-faced people."

Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, in his ‘Durru'l-Mansur’ quotes Abu'l-Qasim ‘Ali Ibn Hasan (commonly known as Ibn Asakir Damishqi), who quotes Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, one of the greatest companions of the Prophet, as saying that he, and others were sitting with the Holy Prophet when ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib came in. The Holy Prophet said: "I swear by Him Who controls my life that this man (‘Ali) and his ‘Shi’as’ shall secure deliverance on the Day of Resurrection."

At that time the verse cited above was revealed. In the same commentary, Ibn Adi quotes Ibn Abbas as saying that when the above verse was revealed, the Prophet said to the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, "You and your followers (‘Shi’as’) will come on the Day of Resurrection in such a condition that all of you will be pleased with Allah, and Allah will be pleased with you."

In the ‘Manaqib’ of Khawarizmi, the following is related from Jabir ibn Abdullah Ansari: "I was in the presence of the Holy Prophet when ‘Ali joined us, and there upon the Holy Prophet said: 'It is my brother that has come to you.' Then, facing towards the Ka'ba, the Prophet took hold of ‘Ali's hand and said: 'By Him Who controls my life, this ‘Ali and his ‘Shi’as’ will be delivered on the Day of Judgement.'

Then he said: ‘Ali is the foremost of you all in belief, the most regardful about Allah's pledges, the most just of you all in deciding matters of the people, the most equitable of you in distributing allowances among the people, and the highest of you all in rank before Allah.'" On that occasion, the verse cited above was revealed.

In Chapter II of his ‘Sawa'iq’, Ibn Hajar quotes Hafiz Jamalu'd-Din Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Zarandi Madani (a great scholar of your sect) as saying that when the above verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet said: "O ‘Ali, you and your ‘Shi’as’ are the best of created beings.

You and your Shi’as will come on the Day of Judgement in such a condition that all of you will be pleased with Allah, and Allah will be pleased with you. Your enemies will be resentful, and their hands shall be tied round their necks." Then ‘Ali asked who his enemy was. The Holy Prophet replied, "One who is hostile to you, and who reviles you."

Allama Samhudi, in ‘Jawahiru'l-Iqdain’, on the authority of Hafiz Jamalu'd-Din Zarandi Madani and Nuru'd-din ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad Maliki Makki, known as Ibn Sabbagh, who is regarded as one of your distinguished scholars and eminent theologians, in his ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’ relates from Abdullah ibn Abbas that when the verse under discussion was revealed, the Prophet said to ‘Ali:

"It is you and your Shi’as. You and they will come on the Day of Judgement fully pleased and satisfied, while your enemies will come in grief, with bound hands."

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i, one of your eminent scholars, in his ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, and the well known anti-‘Shi’as’ scholar, Ibn Hajar, in his ‘Sawa'iq-e Muhriqa’ narrate from ‘Ummu'l-Mu'minin’ Umm Salma, the wife of the Prophet that the Holy Prophet said:

"O ‘Ali, you and your Shi’as will abide in Paradise; you and your Shi’as will abide in Paradise." The well known scholar of Khawarizm, Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad, in his ‘Manaqib’, Chapter 19, relates on reliable authority that the Prophet said to ‘Ali:

"In my community you are like the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary." This statement implies that as the followers of the Prophet Jesus were divided into three groups: “the true believers”, known as ‘hawari'in’, the Jews, and “the exaggerators”, who associated him with Allah. In the same way Muslims would become divided into three groups. One of them would be the Shi’as, “the true believers”. The other group would be ‘Ali's enemies, and the third group would be “the exaggerators” of his position.

The people then dispersed in response to the call for the Isha prayer. After the prayer, Mulla Abdu'l-Hayy returned with a commentary by Suyuti, ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, the ‘Musnad’ of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and the ‘Manaqib’ of Khawarizmi.

He read from them the ‘hadith’ Well-Wisher had quoted in his discussions by way of verification. Since his references had been accurate, the expressions of all those in the opposite camp changed.

In the meantime, in the ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, they came across another ‘hadith’. The Prophet said: "O ‘Ali, on the Day of Judgement, you and your Shi’as will come before Allah fully satisfied and pleased, while your enemy will come in grief and with hands bound."

Well-Wisher: These are clear arguments supported by the Book of Allah, by authentic ‘hadith’, and by history. Support for my position comes from the books of your own eminent scholars. These are in addition to the numerous narrations that exist in the books, and commentaries of Shi’as.

Using the books now before you, I could go on presenting arguments in support of the point under consideration until tomorrow morning, by the grace of Allah; but, I think that what I have presented should be enough to dispel your doubts about Shi’as. Respected audience, we Shi’as are not Jews, we are followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

The originator of the word "Shi’as” as meaning "the followers of ‘Ali", was not the accursed Abdullah ibn Saba, but the Prophet himself. We never follow any individual without authoritative arguments in his favor. You said that it was after Uthman that the word "Shi’as" came to be used referring to the followers of ‘Ali. In fact, even in the Prophet's day, several noted companions were called Shi’as.

Hafiz Abu Hatim Razi, in his ‘Az-Zainat’, which he compiled for clarifying the meanings of certain words, and phrases current among scholars, says that the first new word that came into general acceptance in Islam in the days of the Prophet was "Shi’as". The word was applied to four prominent companions: Abu Dharr Ghifari, Salman al-Farsi, Miqdad ibn Aswad Kindi, and Ammar Yasir. Many more ‘hadith’ were quoted in support of the same point.

Now it is for you to consider how it was possible that during the time of the Prophet four of his chief companions were called Shi’as. If the Prophet thought it was innovation, why didn't he forbid the people to use it? The fact is that people had heard from the Prophet himself that the followers (Shi’as) of ‘Ali were the inhabitants of Heaven. They were proud of it, and openly called themselves Shi’as.

You related a ‘hadith’ from the Prophet saying: "Verily, my companions are like stars; whomever of them you follow, you will be properly guided." Abu'l-Fida writes in his history that these four men, who were companions of the Prophet, abstained, along with ‘Ali, from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr, on the ‘Saqifa day.

Why don't you consider their refusal to pay allegiance to be worthy of emulation? Your own ‘ulama’ have written that they were loved by Allah and His Prophet. We follow them, as they followed ‘Ali. Hence, according to your own hadith, we are on the path of guidance.

With your permission, and keeping in view the shortness of time, I present to you a few narrations in support of my contention that these men were loved by Allah and the Prophet. Both Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in ‘Hilyatu'l-Auliya’, Vol. I, p. 172, and Ibn Hajar Makki in the fifth ‘hadith’ of the forty ‘hadith’ narrated in ‘Sawa'iq-e Muhriqa’ in praise of ‘Ali narrated from Tirmidhi, and Hakim from Buraida, that the Prophet said:

"Verily, Allah has commanded me to love four persons and has told me that He loves them." When the people asked who these four persons were, he said: "‘Ali ibn Abu Talib, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, and Salman."

Again, Ibn Hajar in Hadith No. 39 has narrated from Tirmidhi and Hakim from Anas ibn Malik that the Prophet said: "Paradise is eager for three individuals, ‘Ali, Ammar, and Salman." Isn't the action of these eminent companions of the Holy Prophet a model for other Muslims?

Isn't it shameful that in your view the companions are restricted to those persons who played the game of ‘Saqifa’, or, who acquiesced in it, while the others who opposed the strategy behind ‘Saqifa’ are seen as being unreliable? And, if that be so, then the ‘hadith’ you have quoted should have been: "Verily, a few of my companions are like stars, etc."

You have been unkind in saying that ‘Shi’as'ism’ is a political religion, and that Iranian ‘Zoroastrians’ accepted it in order to save themselves from Arab domination. You have said so in blind conformity to your predecessors.

I have already proved that it is an Islamic religion, one which was commended by the Prophet to his followers. In fact, those who, without any sanction from the Prophet, laid the foundation of a ‘Saqifa’, were themselves politicians, and not the followers of the Holy family of the Prophet. It is characteristic of Iranians that they look into things.

When they are convinced of their truth, they accept them, as they accepted Islam when Iran was conquered by the Arabs. They were not forced to do it. They gave up ‘Zoroastrianism’ and sincerely embraced Islam. Similarly, when they were convinced by logic and by ‘Ali's invaluable services, they accepted ‘Shi’as'ism’. Contrary to the assertion of many of your writers, the Iranians did not accept ‘Ali during the caliphate of Harunu'r-Rashid, or, Mamunu'r-Rashid.

They accepted ‘Ali during the time of the Holy Prophet. Salman al-Farsi was one of the most sincere followers of ‘Ali. He reached the highest rank of faith. The ‘ulama’ of both sects have unanimously written that the Prophet said: "Salman is from our ‘Ahlul Bayt’ (i.e., he is one of the people of my house)." For this reason he was called "Salman Muhammadi" and he was admittedly the staunchest supporter of ‘Ali, and a bitter opponent of ‘Saqifa’.

If, according to your own books, we follow him, we are on the straight way. He heard the verses of the Qur'an, and the sayings of the Prophet about ‘Ali and clearly understood that obedience to ‘Ali was obedience to the Prophet and to Allah. He repeatedly heard the Prophet say:

"One who obeys ‘Ali obeys me; and one who obeys me obeys Allah; one who is hostile to ‘Ali is hostile to me; and one who is hostile to me is hostile to Allah."

Every Iranian, however, who went to Medina and embraced Islam, whether during the time of the Holy Prophet or afterward, obeyed the orders of the Prophet. For this reason, the second caliph became intolerant, and imposed several restrictions on Iranians. These hardships and sufferings bred enmity in their hearts. They questioned why the caliph denied them Islamic rights against the injunctions laid down by the Prophet.

Apart from these conditions, Iranians were grateful to ‘Ali for his compassion regarding the treatment of Iranian princesses taken prisoner by the Arabs. When the prisoners of Mada'in (Taisfun) were brought to Medina, the second caliph ordered that all the female prisoners be made slaves of the Muslims.

‘Ali forbade this, and said that the princesses were exceptions, and were to be honored. Two of the prisoners were the daughters of King Yazdigerd of Iran, and could not be made slaves. The caliph asked what should be done.

‘Ali said that each of them should be allowed to select a husband from the Muslims. Accordingly, Shahzanan selected Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr (who had been brought up by ‘Ali), while the other princess, Shahbanu, selected Imam Husain, the Prophet's grandson. Both went to the homes of these men after a lawful wedding.

Shahzanan gave birth to a son, Qasim Faqih, father of Umm Farwa, who was the mother of our Sixth Imam, Ja'far as-Sadiq. Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, our fourth Imam, was born of Shahbanu.

So, the establishment of ‘Shi’as'ism’ had no connection with the time of Harun and Ma'mun, or, with the rule of the Safavid Dynasty in Iran, as you said earlier. It was openly propagated seven centuries before the Safavid Kingdom (i.e., in the 4th century Hijri), when the Dailamites (the Buwayyids) were rulers.

In 694 A.H. the Iranian Kingdom was ruled by Ghazan Khan Mughul (whose Islamic name was Mahmud). Since at that time, belief in the Prophet's Ahlul Bayt’ was commonly expressed, ‘Shi’as'ism’ grew steadily.

After the death of Ghazan Khan Mughul in 707 A.H., his brother, Muhammad Shah Khuda Bandeh became the ruler of Iran. He arranged a religious debate between Allama Hilli, a learned ‘Shi’as’ scholar, and Khwaja Nizamu'd-Din Abdu'l-Malik Maraghe'i, the chief justice of the ‘Shafi'ites’ and the greatest ‘Sunni’ scholar of that time.

The subject of this debate was the Imamate. The Allama put forward such cogent arguments to prove that ‘Ali was the immediate successor of the Prophet, and so convincingly refuted the claims of the other side, that all those present were completely satisfied with the reasoning of the Allama.

Khwaja Nizamu'd-Din acknowledged that the Allama's arguments could not be refuted. But, he said that, since he was following the path of his predecessors, it was not proper to leave it. He felt that it was important to maintain solidarity among the Muslims.

The King listened to the arguments with keen interest, accepted the ‘Shi’as’ position himself, and announced the legitimacy of ‘Shi’as'ism’ in Iran. He subsequently proclaimed to the governors of the regions that the weekly ‘Khutba's (sermons given in the Mosques) should proclaim ‘Ali's right as the successor of the Prophet. He also ordered that the Kalima be inscribed on the dinars (gold coins) in this way:

"La ilaha ill'allah; Muhammadan Rasulullah; Aliyyan Waliullah," meaning, "There is no God except Allah; Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah, and ‘Ali is Allah's Wali (vicegerent or divinely appointed guardian of the people)”.

In this way the roots of ‘Shi’as'ism’ were firmly established. Seven centuries later, when the Safavid kings came to power, the clouds of ignorance and fanaticism were further removed, ‘Shi’as'ism’ flourished everywhere in Iran. Yes, there are ‘Zoroastrians’ in Iran and those who exaggerate the position of ‘Ali and consider him Allah.

But, they should not be associated with the common Iranian people, who believe in Allah and the Prophet Muhammad as the last of the prophets. These follow ‘Ali and his eleven descendants as commanded by the Prophet.

Hafiz: It is strange that although you originally came from the Hijaz (Arabia) and have been living in Iran for a short time, still you support the Iranians, and call them the followers of ‘Ali, who was himself obedient to Allah. But, Iranian Shi’as, to a man, regard ‘Ali as Allah. Here are some couplets from the works of Iranian poets indicating this view, while ‘Ali himself condemned such beliefs.

The last of these couplets shows ‘Ali saying: "Who helps at the time of difficulties? It is I, who am Allah! It is I." A couplet of another poet says: "According to the belief of those who are intelligent and recognize Allah, Allah is ‘Ali, and ‘Ali is Allah."

Well-Wisher: I wonder why, without making inquiries, you should accuse all Iranians of regarding ‘Ali as Allah. Your own ‘ulama’ have made fanatical claims of this sort. They have said that the Shi’as are the worshipers of ‘Ali and as such they are infidels. Therefore, murdering them is obligatory.

As a result, Muslims of Uzbekistan and Turkestan have recklessly shed the blood of Iranian Muslims. The common people among the ‘Sunnis’ are often misguided by some of your ‘ulama’, and your people consider the Iranians infidels.

In the past, your people, the Turkomans, have attacked Iranian caravans near Khorasan, plundered and murdered the people, and said that whoever killed seven Rafizis (Shi’as), would certainly go to Paradise. You should bear in mind that the responsibility of such murders rests squarely on your leaders, who tell ignorant ‘Sunnis’ that Shi’as worship ‘Ali.

Referring to your first point that, since I was originally connected with Arabia, Mecca, and Medina, why should I support the Iranians, I tell you that I have no partisan spirit. Our Prophet said: "The Arabs should not boast that they are superior to non-Arabs and vice versa; and the whites should not boast of their superiority to the blacks and vice versa. Superiority lies only in knowledge and piety. In the Holy Qur'an, Allah says:

'O men! Surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty).'" (49:13)

Also, in the same chapter in the Qur'an, He says:

"The believers are brethren; therefore, make peace between your brethren and be careful of (your duty to) Allah that mercy may be had on you." (49:10)

Accordingly, all Asians, Africans, Europeans, Americans of white, black, red, or, yellow races who are Muslims are brothers, and no one can claim superiority to another. The greatest leader of Islam, the last of the Prophets, acted on this principle.

He showed his special affection for Salman al-Farsi of Iran, Suhaib of Asia Minor, and Bilal of Abyssinia. On the other hand, he rejected Abu Lahab (whose name means 'Father of Flame'), his own uncle who was condemned by a chapter of the Holy Qur'an which said:

The world has witnessed disturbances of the worst order in Western countries which were the result of racial discrimination. In those countries black people are not allowed in hotels, restaurants, churches, and other congregations meant for white people. Islam banned such cruel practices 1,300 years ago and proclaimed that all Muslims, regardless of race, color, or, nationality are brothers. So, if the Arabs go astray, I will condemn them, and I will be the friend of the Iranian Shi’as.

Second, you have associated Iranian extremists with the Shi’as, who are steadfast monotheists, and follow ‘Ali according to the commands of the Prophet. We regard ‘Ali as a pious servant of Allah and the divinely appointed successor of the Holy Prophet.

Moreover, we reject those whose beliefs are contrary to ours, like the Saba'iyya, the Khitabiyya, the Gharabiyya, the Alawiyya, the Mukhammasa, the Bazighiyya, the Nussairiyya, who are scattered throughout Iran, Mosul, and Syria. We Shi’as are distinct from them and consider them infidels. In all the books written by ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’, and legal scholars, the Ghalis (extremists) are included among the disbelievers, since their belief is against the tenets of ‘Shi’as'ism’.

For instance, they argue that, since the infusion of the soul into a material body is possible (as Gabriel could appear before the Holy Prophet in the form of Dahiyya al-Kalbi), it was Allah's will that His Holy Self appear in human form in ‘Ali's body.

For this reason they consider the position of ‘Ali higher than that of the Prophet. Such a faction emerged during ‘Ali's own time. Some people of India and the Sudan came to him and professed that he was Allah.

‘Ali repeatedly forbade them to hold this view, but to no effect. Finally, as is recorded in many histories, ‘Ali ordered them to be killed in wells of smoke. The details of this case have been given in ‘Baharu'l-Anwar’, Volume VII, by the great Alim, Agha Muhammad Baqir Majlisi.

The Commander of the Faithful, and other Imams bitterly condemned such people. ‘Ali said: "O Allah, I scorn the group of Ghullat (extremists), just as Jesus scorned the Christians. May you forsake them forever."

On another occasion he said: "There are two groups who will suffer humiliating death, and I am not responsible for them (since I disdain their deeds): those who exceed the lawful limits of love for me, and are ‘Ghullat’ (extremists), and those who, for no reason whatsoever, are hostile to me. I hate those who extol my position beyond its proper limit, just as Christ hated the Christians."

He also said: "There are two groups associated with me who will suffer ignoble death: one is composed of those people who say they are friends and praise me beyond lawful limit; the other is composed of the enemies who degrade my rank."

The Shi’as condemn those who praised ‘Ali and his Ahlul Bayt beyond the limit ordained by Allah and the Prophet. Our ulama’ have unanimously held that they are all disbelievers. It is not permitted to attend their funerals, or, to marry them. They are also deprived of inheriting Muslim property; charity and religious taxes may not be given to them. The Holy Qur'an condemns them in these words:

"Say: O followers of the Book, be not immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before, and led many astray and went astray from the right path." (5:80)

Allama Majlisi, in his ‘Baharu'l-Anwar’ Volume III, which is the encyclopedia of the ‘Shi’as’ faith, has recorded many ‘hadith’ condemning the ‘Ghullat’ (extremists). Imam Ja'far-as-Sadiq is quoted as saying, "We are servants of Allah, Who created us and made us superior to the others of His creation. Certainly we shall die and shall stand before Allah for reckoning. He who is a friend of the ‘Ghalis’ is our enemy; and he who is their enemy, is our friend. The ‘Ghalis’ are infidels and polytheists; curse be upon them."

A great religious head of the Shi’as has also quoted the same Imam as saying, "Allah's curse be upon those who claim divinity and godhood for ‘Ali. By Allah, ‘Ali was an obedient servant of Allah. Curse be upon those who have slandered us; some people say things about us that we do not say ourselves. We declare that we have no connection with them."

Sheikh Saduq (Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali), a highly respected ‘Faqih’ (legal scholar) of the Shi’as, quotes Zarara Ibn A'yun, a reliable ‘Shi’as’ writer, who was a ‘hafiz and companion of Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja'far-as-Sadiq, as saying: "I told Imam Ja'far Sadiq that one of the persons known to him believes in ‘Tufwiz’ (delegation of Divine authority).

The Imam said: 'What is meant by Tufwiz?' I replied, 'The man says that Allah created Muhammad and ‘Ali and then delegated to them His authority over the affairs of the people. So, they are the creators, the givers of food; they are the animators, and they are the killers.'

The Holy Imam said: 'The enemy of Allah lies. When you go back to him, read him this verse from the Holy Qur'an:

"....or have they set up with Allah associates who have created creation like His, so that what is created became confused to them? Say: 'Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Supreme.'" (13:16)

We Shi’as are separate from the ‘Ghali’s (extremists). Let them claim that they are Shi’as. Allah, the Holy Prophet, ‘Ali, and their descendants hate them. ‘Ali kept the chief of the ‘Ghullat’ in prison for three days, and ordered him to repent for his wickedness.

When he refused, ‘Ali had him burned to death. If you cannot produce a single book in which the ‘Ghali’s have been praised, you should at least condemn the intolerant ‘ulama’ who misguide the ‘Sunni’s about the Shi’as.

Hafiz: Your brotherly advice is worth the consideration. But, would you please clarify some other points? You have all along said that you do not unduly praise your Imams. You regard the ‘Ghullat’ as contemptible and fit for hell, but you use inappropriate expressions regarding your Imams. You have said "Blessings of Allah be upon them," although you know that, according to the Holy Qur'an, this expression is reserved only for the Holy Prophet.

The Qur'an says:

"Surely Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, call for (Divine) blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation." (33:56)

Your practice clearly violates the injunction of the Holy Qur'an. Your expression is an innovation.

Well-Wisher: This verse does not forbid us to bless any other person. We are enjoined to bless the Prophet. In another verse of the Holy Qur'an, Allah says: "Peace be on the people of Ya Sin (Ahlul Ya Sin)," a reference to the descendants of the Prophet.

As for the other Prophets of Allah, blessings have not been given to their descendants anywhere in the Holy Qur'an. Blessings have been given only to the prophets of Allah.

All commentators and scholars of your own sect admit that Allah has addressed the Prophet as ‘Ya Sin’. Hence, Ahlul (the people of) ‘Ya Sin’ means the people of Muhammad. Among others, Ibn Hajar Makki, a very intolerant ‘Sunni’ scholar, says in ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, under the verses quoted in commendation of the ‘Ahlul Bayt’, that a group of commentators quoted Ibn Abbas (commentator, and the chief of the believers) as saying that ‘Ahlul Ya Sin’ means ‘Ahle’ Muhammad.

Therefore, ‘salaam’, the greeting of peace, for ‘Ahlul Ya Sin’ means ‘salaam’ for ‘Ahle’ Muhammad. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi writes: "The ‘Ahlul Bayt’ of the Prophet are equal to him in five matters:

1) The ‘salaam’: ‘salaam’ for the Prophet and ‘salaam’ for ‘Ahlul Ya Sin’ (‘Ahle’ Muhammad) are the same thing.

2) The ‘salawat’ (blessings) in ritual prayers for the Prophet and his ‘Ahlul Bayt’, which is compulsory.

3) Purity: Allah says in the ‘sura of "Ta Ha" (20:1): "(O Prophet) Clean and Pure:" The verse of purity was revealed in praise of the ‘Ahlul Bayt’.

4) Unlawfulness of charity: Charity may not be accepted either by the Prophet or, by his ‘Ahlul Bayt’.

5) Love: Love for the Prophet means love for his ‘Ahlul Bayt’. Allah Almighty says, "Say: if you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you..." (3:31) And about the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ Allah says, "...Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives..." (42:23)

Many of those relating ‘hadith’, particularly Bukhari in his ‘Sahih’, Volume III, and Muslim in his ‘Sahih’, Volume I, Sulayman Balkhi in his ‘Yanabiu'l Mawadda’, and even Hajar in his ‘Sawa'iq’ quotes Ka'b Ibn Ajza as saying:

"When the verse: 'Verily, Allah and His angels bless the Prophet...' (33:56) was revealed, we asked the Holy Prophet, 'How should we pray for our blessings for you, Apostle of Allah?' The Prophet replied, 'Pray for your blessings in this way: "O Allah, bless (the Prophet) Muhammad and ‘Ahlul Muhammad’.""

Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, in Volume VI of his ‘Tafsir al-Kabir’, also narrates a similar ‘hadith’. Ibn Hajar, commenting on the tradition, indicates that it is clear from the ‘hadith’ that praying for blessings for the Holy Prophet is equal to praying for blessings on his descendants as well.

He also quotes the Holy Prophet as saying: "Don't be incomplete in praying for blessings for me." When asked what he meant by 'incomplete' blessings, he said: "Do not say, 'O Allah, bless Muhammad,' but say, 'O Allah, bless Muhammad, and his descendants.'"

Dailami writes that the Prophet said: "Our prayer remains obstructed unless we pray for blessings upon the Prophet, and his people." Shafi'i says, "O Ahlul Bayt! In the Holy Qur'an Allah has made love for you compulsory for us. Regarding the loftiness of your rank and position, it is sufficient to know that if a man does not pray for divine blessings for you, his prayer is not accepted."

If the prayer for blessings for the Prophet and his descendants is deliberately omitted, the ritual prayer is rejected. And, the Prophet said: "The ritual prayer is the pillar of faith; if the prayer is accepted, all other deeds are accepted; if it is rejected, all other deeds are rejected."

To pray for divine blessings for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ is the ‘sunna’ (commendable practice), and a mode of worship which was performed by the Holy Prophet himself. We are proud to do what the Holy Qur'an and the Holy Prophet have enjoined us to do.

Third Session, Saturday night, 25th of Rajab, 1345 A.H.

Hafiz: Based on your talk last night, I conclude that the Shi’as are divided into a number of factions. Will you kindly let us know which of them you accept so that we may restrict our discussion to that faction.

I didn't say that the Shi’as are divided into factions. Shi’as are devoted to Allah and followers of the Prophet and his descendants. Of course some factions have assumed the name of ‘Shi’as’ to mislead people.

They took advantage of the name of the Shi’as, preached false beliefs, and spread confusion. Uninformed people have included their names among the Shi’as. There are four such factions, two of which have survived: the ‘Zaidiyya’, the ‘Kaysaniyya’, the ‘Qaddahiyya’, and the ‘Ghullat’.

The ‘Zaidiyyas’ follow Zaid Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Husain. They consider Imam Zainu'l-Abidin's son, Zaid, to be his successor. At present these people are found in large numbers in Yemen and its surroundings. They believe that of the descendants of ‘Ali and Fatima, he is "The Imam who is learned, pious, and brave.

He draws the sword and rises against the enemy." During the time of the oppressive Umayyad Caliph, Hisham ibn Abdu'l-Malik, Hazrat Zaid rose against those in authority and courted martyrdom and was therefore acknowledged as Imam by the ‘Zaidiyyas’.

The fact is that Zaid possessed a far higher position than that which the ‘Zaidiyyin’ claim for him. He was a great Sayyid of the Hashimite dynasty, and was known for his piety, wisdom, prayers, and bravery. He passed many sleepless nights in prayer and fasted frequently.

The Prophet prophesied his martyrdom, as narrated by Imam Husain: "The Holy Prophet put his sacred hand on my back, and said: 'O Husain, it will not be long until a man will be born among your descendants.

He will be called Zaid; he will be killed as a martyr. On the day of resurrection, he and his companions will enter heaven, setting their feet on the necks of the people.'"

But, Zaid himself never claimed to be an ‘Imam’. It is sheer slander for people to say that he did. In fact, he recognized Muhammad Baqir as the ‘Imam’, and pledged his full obedience to him.

It was only after Muhammad Baqir's demise that unknowing people adopted the doctrine that "he is not the Imam who remains sitting at home and hides himself from the people; the Imam is one who is a descendant of Hazrat Fatima, an ‘Alim, and who draws the sword and rises against the enemy and invites people to his side." The ‘Zaidiyyas’ are divided into five factions: 1) Mughairiyya; 2) Jarudiyya; 3) Zakariyya; 4) Khashbiyya; and 5) Khaliqiyya.

The second faction is the ‘Kaysaniyyas’. These are the companions of Kaysan, a slave of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, who had freed him. These people believe that after Imam Hasan and Imam Husain, Muhammad Hanafiyya, the next eldest son of Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, was the ‘Imam’. But, Muhammad Hanafiyya himself never claimed this. He was called the sincerest of devotees. He was known for his knowledge, piety, devotion, and obedience to divine commandments.

Some ignorant men produced evidence of what they called his opposition to Imam Zainu'l-Abidin. They claimed that Muhammad Hanafiyya claimed to be the ‘Imam’.

The fact was otherwise. He never claimed to be the ‘Imam’. He wanted to show his ignorant followers the rank, and position of the fourth Imam Zainu'l-Abidin. The result was that, in the same Holy mosque when Hajaru'l-Aswad (The Black Holy Stone) affirmed the ‘Imamate’ of Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, Abu Khalid Kabuli, chief of the followers of Muhammad Hanafiyya, along with all other followers, acknowledged Imam Zainu'l-Abidin as the ‘Imam’.

But, a group of cunning people misled the simple, and ignorant people by saying that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya had only shown modesty, that in the face of the Umayyads it was most desirable for Muhammad Hanifiyya to do as he did.

After the death of Muhammad Hanifiyya, these people said that he was not dead, that he had hidden himself in a cave of Mount Rizwi, and that he would reappear in the future to fill the world with justice and peace. This group contained four sub-factions: 1) Mukhtariyya; 2) Karbiyya; 3) Ishaqiyya and 4) Harabiyya. But, none of them exists today.

The third faction, ‘Qaddahiyya’, calls itself ‘Shi’as’, but it is a group of infidels. This sect originated in Egypt by Ma'mun Ibn Salim (or, Disan) known as Qada and Issa Chahar Lakhtan (Jesus of Four Parts). They took it upon themselves to interpret the Holy Qur'an and the records of history according to their own wishes.

They hold that there are two codes of religion: one secret and the other manifest. The secret code was given by Allah to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet gave it to ‘Ali, and he gave it to his descendants, and to the pure Shi’as. They believe that those who know the secret code are exempt from prayers and the worship of Allah.

They have founded their religion on seven pillars. They believe in seven Prophets, and in seven ‘Imams’, the seventh Imam being in occultation. They are awaiting his appearance. They are divided into two factions:

1) The ‘Nasiriyya’ were the companions of Nasir Khusru Alawi, who through his poems, speeches, and books attracted a large number of people to infidelity. They were spread over Tabaristan in large numbers.

2) The ‘Sabahiyya’ (known in the West as the Assassins). They were the companions of Hasan Sabba, a native of Egypt who came to Iran, and caused the tragic events of ‘Alamut’, which resulted in the slaughter of large numbers of people. These facts are preserved in the records of history.

The fourth faction is that of the ‘Ghalis’, which is the most debased of all sects. They are incorrectly known as Shi’as. In fact they are all unbelievers. They are divided into seven factions: 1) Saba'iyya; 2) Mansuriyya; 3) Gharabiyya; 4) Bazighiyya; 5) Yaqubiyya; 6) Isma'iliyya; and 7) Azdariyya.

Not only we ‘Shi’as’ Ithna Asharis (who believe in the twelve Imams), but all Muslims of the world reject their faith.

The ‘Shi’as’ Imamiyya group believes in the Ever-Existing Almighty Allah. He is One, in the sense of the absolute oneness of His essential existence. He is One, with none comparable to Him. He is the Creator of everything in existence. There is no match, or, equal to Him in any respect. The Holy prophets and messengers were sent to tell the people about Allah, how to worship Him, and how to know Him.

All of the prophets preached and guided the people according to the tenets set forth by the five major prophets: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and last of all, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, whose religion shall last until the Day of Judgement.

Allah Almighty has fixed recompense for our deeds, to be given to us in Paradise, or, Hell. The day fixed for the recompense of our deeds is called the Day of Judgement. When the world's life ends, Allah Almighty will re-animate the beings of the world from the beginning to the end. He will let them gather in the ‘Mashar’, the place of the gathering of the souls. After a just reckoning, everyone will be given reward, or, punishment according to his deeds.

These things have been foretold in all divine books: the Torah, Bible, and the Holy Qur'an. For us, the most authentic source of guidance is the Holy Qur'an, which has reached us from the time of the Holy Prophet without any change.

We act upon the injunctions contained in the Holy Qur'an, and we hope to be recompensed by Allah. We believe in all those obligatory commandments which are contained in the Holy Qur'an, like Namaz’ (prayers), Ruza (fasting), ‘Zakat’ and ‘Khums’ (yearly religious taxes), Hajj (Pilgrimage to the Ka'ba), and Jihad (Holy war).

Similarly, we believe in the Articles of Practice of the faith, including the obligatory and optional practices and all other injunctions that have reached us through the Holy Prophet. We are determined to abide by them, and to perform them to the best of our capacity. And we refrain from all sins, large, or, small, like drinking, gambling, fornication, sodomy, usury, murder, tyranny, which have been forbidden in the Holy Qur'an, and ‘hadith’.

We Shi’as also believe that, just as there is a messenger from Allah who conveys to us orders and injunctions, and who is elected and introduced to us by Allah, there is also a successor, caliph or protector of religion, who is appointed by Allah, and is introduced to us through the Prophet of Allah. Accordingly, all prophets of Allah introduced their successors to their ‘umma’ (followers).

The last of the Holy prophets, who was the most perfect and most exalted of all prophets of Allah, left for his followers guides to help the people avoid confusion. According to the established ‘hadith’, he introduced to the people his twelve successors, the first: ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. The last Imam, the Mahdi, who is present in the world, but is in occultation, will appear at an unknown time in the future, when he will fill the seething world with justice, and peace.

The ‘Shi’as’ Imamiyyas also believe that these twelve Imams have been ordained by Allah and have been introduced to us through the last Holy Prophet. The last of the Holy Imams has vanished from sight (by divine command), just as other Imams disappeared, during the time of previous prophets, as stated in many books written by your ‘ulama’.

This sacred being has been preserved by Allah Almighty so that he may one day fill the world with justice. In short, the ‘Shi’as’ believe in all that is contained in the Holy Qur'an, and in authentic ‘hadith’. I am grateful to Allah that I have adopted these beliefs, not merely in blind imitation of my parents, but through logical reasoning and study.

Hafiz: Respected sir, I am indeed obliged to you for having explained the ‘Shi’as’ beliefs, but there are ‘hadith’ and supplications in your books which run counter to your statements, and establish the heresy of the Shi’as.

Hafiz: In ‘Tafsir al-Safi’, written by one of your high-ranking ‘ulama’, Faiz Kashi, there is a ‘hadith’ that one day Imam Husain, the Martyr of Karbala, addressing his companions said: "O people, Allah Almighty has not created his servants but to know Him. When they knew Him, they worshipped Him, when they worshipped Him, they became adverse to worship of any other thing." One of the Companions said:

"May the lives of my father, and mother be sacrificed to you! O son of the Holy Prophet! What is the real meaning of knowing Allah?" The Holy Imam replied, "For every man to know Allah means to know the Imam of his time, who must be obeyed."

Well-Wisher: First, we must examine the chain of narrators of the ‘hadith’ in order to establish whether it is authentic. Even if it is correct with regard to the chain of narrators, yet the verses of the Holy Qur'an, and the unquestionable ‘hadith’ of the Holy Prophet in regard to the Oneness of Allah cannot be misconstrued because of the assertion of one man.

Why don't you examine the ‘hadith’ and sayings of our Holy Imams, and the religious dialogues between our religious heads and the atheists, which already prove the unity of Allah? Why don't you consult the chief books and commentaries of the Shi’as, such as ‘Tawhid al-Mufazzal’, ‘Tawhid al-Saduq’, Biharu'l-Anwar (Book of Tawhid) of Allama Majlisi and other books written by ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’, which are full of continuous ‘hadith’ (on Tawhid) by our Holy Imams?

Why don't you consult ‘An-Naktu'l-I'tiqadiyya’, by Sheikh Mufid (d. 413 A.H.), one of the ‘Shi’as’ ‘ulama’, and also his book ‘Awa'ilu'l-Maqalat fi'l-Mazahib wa'l-Mukhtarra’ or ‘Ihtijaj’ by our famous Alim, Abu Mansur Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib Tabrasi. If you had, you would know how our Holy Imam ar-Ridha’ proved the unity of Allah.

It is not fair to pick out some dubious report simply to malign the Shi’as. Your own books contain absurdities and whimsical ideas. In fact, ridiculous ‘hadith’ exist in your most authentic books like the ‘Siha al-Sitta’, (i.e., the Six Books of Accepted Traditions).

Hafiz: In fact, your words are ridiculous since you find fault with books whose greatness and authenticity are unquestionable, particularly the ‘Sahih Bukhari’, and ‘Sahih Muslim’. Our ‘ulama’ agree that all the ‘hadith’ contained in them are true. If someone rejects these two books, he rejects the real ‘Sunni’ sect.

After the Holy Qur'an, ‘Sunni’s rely upon the authenticity of these two books. Perhaps you have seen Ibn Hajar Makki's point in the beginning of his ‘Sawa'iqe Muhriqa’, chapter of "The Affairs" (affairs of the caliphate of Abu Bakr) as recorded by Bukhari and Muslim in their ‘Sahihain, which are the most authentic and reliable books after the Holy Qur'an, according to the unanimity of the followers (i.e., the ‘umma’, or community).

He says that since the whole community is unanimous in accepting the ‘hadith’ of these books, whatever the community holds with one accord is unquestionable. On the basis of this agreement, all the ‘hadith’ contained in these books are undoubtedly acceptable. Hence, no one can have the courage to assert that these books contain absurdities, or, ridiculous matter.

Well-Wisher: First, that these books are acceptable to the whole community is open to objection. Your claim with reference to Ibn Hajar is, itself, absurd since 100 million Muslims do not accept his point. Hence, the unanimity of the community in the matter is just like the unanimity claimed by your people in the matter of the caliphate. Secondly, what I say is based on valid reasons.

If you study those books with an unprejudiced mind, you will be astonished. Many of your great ‘ulama’, such as Dar Qutni, Ibn Hazam, Allama Abu'l-Fazl Ja'far Ibn Tha'labi in ‘Kitabu'l-Imta' fi Ahkamu's-Sama'’, Sheikh Abdu'l-Qadir Ibn Muhammad Qarshi in ‘Jawahiru'l-Mazay'a fi Tabaqatu'l-Hanafiyya’, and others, including all the ‘Hanafi’ ‘ulama’, have criticized the ‘Sahihain’ and have acknowledged that they contain a number of weak and unconfirmed ‘hadith’. The objective of ‘Bukhari’ and ‘Muslim’ was to collect ‘hadith’; not to consider their authenticity.

Some of your research scholars, like Kamalu'd-Din Ja'far Ibn Sa'lih have taken great pains in pointing out the defects, and faults of the ‘hadith’ and have set forth valid grounds in support of their findings.

Hafiz: I would welcome it if you would put forward the arguments so that the audience may know the truth.

If you wish to study misleading ‘hadith’ regarding the incarnation of Allah, which contend that He, as a physical being, can be seen in this world, or, will be seen in the Hereafter, (as believed by a faction of the ‘Sunni’s, i.e., the ‘Hanbalites’ and ‘Asharites’), you may refer to your own books, particularly ‘Sahih Bukhari’ (Vol. I, in the Chapter “Fazla's-Sujud Min Kitabu'l-Adhan”, page 100; Vol. IV, p.92 of ‘Sahih Muslim’, "Babu's-Sira Min Kitabu'r-Riqaq", and ‘Sahih Muslim’ (Vol. I, in the Chapter "Isbatu'l-Ruyatu'l-Mu'minin Rabbahum Fi'l-Akhira," page 86); and ‘Musnad’ of Imam Hanbal, Volume II, page 275.

You will find sufficient information of this type in those books. For example, Abu Huraira says: "The clamor and violent rage of Hell will intensify, it will not calm down until Allah puts His leg in it. Then Hell will say, 'Stop, stop!

It is enough for me; it is enough for me.'" Abu Huraira also narrates that a group of people asked the Holy Prophet, "Shall we see our Creator on the Day of Judgement?" He replied, "Of course. At mid-day when the sky is free of clouds, does the Sun hurt you, if you look at it?"

They said: "No!" Again he said: "During the nights when you see the full moon when the sky is clear, does it hurt you?" They said: "No!" He continued: "So when you see Allah Almighty on the Day of Judgement, you will not be hurt, just as you are not hurt by seeing these (the sun and the moon).

When the Day of Judgement comes, it will be announced by Allah that every community should follow “its god”. So, everyone who has worshiped idols, or, anything other than Allah, The One, shall be thrust into Hell fire.

So, shall every one of the good and bad persons be thrown into it except those who worshipped Allah (S.W.T.), the Absolute One. They shall lie in Hellfire. At that time Allah will appear in a particular form before the people, so that they can see Him. Then Allah will tell them that He is their Allah. The believers will then say, 'We take refuge in Your Godhead. We are not among those who have worshiped anything except Allah the Absolute.'

Allah will say in reply, 'Have you any sign between you and Allah so that you may see Him and identify Him?' They will say, 'Yes.' Then Allah will show them His bare leg. Thereupon the believers will raise their heads upwards and will see Him in the same condition as they saw Him for the first time. Then Allah will say that He is their Creator. All of them will acknowledge that He is their Allah."

Now, it is for you to judge whether this kind of statement is tantamount to infidelity, or, not, that Allah would physically appear before the people, and would uncover His leg! And, the strongest point in support of my argument is that Muslim Ibn Hajjaj begins a Chapter in his ‘Sahih’ about the proof of the visibility of Almighty Allah, and has quoted the fabricated reports from Abu Huraira, Zaid Ibn Aslam, Suwaid Ibn Sa'id, and others.

And, some of the leading ‘ulama’ of your own sect like Dhahabi in ‘Mizanu'l-I'tidal’ and Suyuti in his ‘Kitabu'l-Lu'ualia'l-Masnu'a fi hadithu'l-Muzu'a’, and Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Al-Muzu'a’, have proved on reasonable grounds that these narrations are fabricated.

Well-Wisher: Respected friend, you have taken one sentence out of context. I will recite the whole text to you. This ‘hadith’ has been recorded by the great Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Yaqub Kulaini in his Usul Kafi, Volume on Tawhid, as well as Sheikh Saduq in his Book on Tawhid, Chapter "Ibtal Aqida Ruyatullah."

Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq is quoted as saying a Jewish scholar asked the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, whether he had seen Allah at the time of prayers. The Imam replied: "He cannot be seen by these physical eyes. It is the heart which sees Him through the light of the realities of conviction."

It follows from ‘Ali's reply that what he means by seeing Allah is not seeing Him with the eyes, but through the light of sincere faith. There are many other proofs based on reason, and recorded facts to substantiate our point of view.

Moreover, apart from ‘Shi’as’ scholars, your own ‘ulama’, like Qazi Baidhawi and Jarullah Zamakhshari, have proved in their commentaries that it is impossible to see Allah. One who believes in the visibility of Allah, in this world, or, in the Hereafter, believes that He is a physical being. To believe this is infidelity.

You consider that your six traditional books, particularly those of ‘Bukhari’ and ‘Muslim’, are like revealed books. I wish that you could look at them objectively, and not exceed limits in your praise for them. Bukhari, in the Chapter "Kitab al-Ghusl," and Muslim in Part II of his ‘Sahih’ (in the Chapter on Virtues of the Prophet Moses), and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, Part II, page 315, and others of your ‘ulama’ have quoted Abu Huraira as saying: "Among the Bani Isra'il it was customary to bathe together without clothes, so that they glanced at the genitals of one another.

They did not consider it objectionable. Only the Prophet Moses went into the water alone, so that no one could see his private parts. The Bani Isra'il used to say that the Prophet Moses had defective genitals, so he avoided bathing with them. One day the Prophet Moses went to the river to bathe.

He took off his clothes, put them over a stone, and went into the water. The stone fled with his clothes. Moses ran after the stone, naked, shouting: 'My clothes! O stone, my clothes.' The Bani Israel saw the naked Moses and said: 'By Allah! Moses has no defect in his genitals. The stone then stopped and Moses retrieved his clothes.

Then, Moses beat the stone so severely that six or seven times the stone shrieked in pain." Do you actually believe such a thing is possible for the Holy Prophet Moses, or that a stone, an inanimate object, could take away his clothes? Surely it would be impossible for a Prophet to run naked before the people.

I will relate another ‘hadith’ recorded in the ‘Sahih’, which is even more ridiculous. Bukhari quotes Abu Huraira in his ‘Sahih’ (Volume I, page 158 and Volume II, page 163) and again in the Chapter "Death of the Prophet Moses", and Muslim also quotes the same authority (Abu Huraira) in his ‘Sahih’, Volume II, page 309 in the Chapter "On The Merits of Moses" as saying: "The Angel of Death came to the Prophet Moses and asked him to accept the invitation of his Creator.

Upon hearing this, Moses gave him such a slap in his face that he lost one of his eyes. So, he went back to Allah and complained that he had sent him to a man who did not want to die and who had knocked out one of his eyes. Allah cured his eye and ordered him to go again to Moses and to tell him that if he wanted longer life, he should lay his hand on the back of a bull. He would live for as many years as the number of hairs that would be covered by his hand."

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, Volume II, page 315, and Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari in his History, Volume I, under the heading "Death of the Prophet Moses," gave the same account from Abu Huraira with the addition that up to the time of Moses, the Angel of Death used to physically separate the soul from the body. But, after Moses gave him a slap in the face, he came unseen.

Now, it is for you to judge what sort of nonsense this is which is included in the two collections of traditions, which you call the most correct of all books after the Holy Qur'an. The reports I have cited certainly insult the honor of the prophets of Allah. As for Abu Huraira, I am not surprised at his narrations.

Your own ‘ulama’ admit that in order to fill his belly from the dainty dishes provided by Mu'awiya, he fabricated reports. Because of his fabrications, Caliph ‘Umar had him lashed. It is surprising that sensible people believe in such ridiculous stories.

Now, let's return to our discussion regarding the ‘hadith’ you quoted. Obviously, a just man who sees a lone narration (narrated by only one person) would compare it with other authentic ‘hadith’. He would correct it, or, reject it outright, rather than use it as a basis for attacking his brothers of another sect and calling them infidels.

Since the ‘Tafsir al-Safi’ is not here with us, we cannot say anything about the authenticity of this ‘hadith’. Even if it is true, we should rely on the principle that if we know the effect, we can know the cause.

That is, if we know the Imam as Imam, we certainly know the identity of Allah, in the same way that if one knows the prime minister, he knows the King. It is in reference to this principle that the chapter "Tawhid" and other verses of the Holy Qur'an were revealed.

Moreover, there are many ‘hadith’ about the unity of Allah narrated by Imam Husain himself and other Imams. To know our Imam is a great form of worship of Allah. The same meaning has been given in ‘Ziarat al-Jami'a’, which has come down to us from our Holy Imam.

We may also interpret it in another way, as scholars have done in similar matters. Every performer of an action may be understood by the nature of his action. Since the Prophet and his descendants attained the highest level of human possibility, no others are as meritorious or virtuous as they. Since they are the most evident means of knowing Allah, anyone who knows them, knows Allah.

As they have themselves said: "It is through us that Allah can be known, and it is through us that Allah can be served." We believe that the Prophet's family taught us knowledge about Allah and the proper way to worship Him. Those who have not followed them have lost the way.

To stress the same point, the Prophet said in a ‘hadith’ acknowledged by both sects, "O my people! I leave behind me for you two great objects (of authority): The book of Allah and my ‘Ahlul Bayt’. Should you remain attached to these two, never, never shall you be misled after me (for verily these two shall never, never be separated from each other until they meet me at the ‘Fountain of Kauthar’).”

Hafiz: We do not rely on this tradition, which you try to revise. There are many innovations in your books and examples of polytheism, like seeking fulfillment of our desires from the Imams rather than from Allah. What is polytheism? Polytheism means to turn to any other person or, thing rather than to Allah for the satisfaction of our needs. It has been observed that Shi’as never invoke Allah. They invoke the Imams. It is nothing, but polytheism.

Well-Wisher: I am afraid you distort facts. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell you what polytheism is according to the great ‘ulama’ of Islam and according to the verses of the Holy Qur'an.

Polytheism is of two kinds: open polytheism and hidden polytheism. Open polytheism means to associate someone, or, something with Allah's All-Perfect Self, or, with His attributes. Making partners with Allah means associating something with His Oneness, and acknowledging this association with the tongue, like the ‘Sanamiyyas’ (idol-worshippers), or, the ‘Zoroastrians’, who believe in two principles: light and darkness. Christians also do this.

They believe in the trinity, and divide divinity into three parts: father, son, and Holy spirit. They believe in separate characteristics for each, and unless the three are united, the Divine self is not complete. The Holy Qur'an rejects this belief, and Allah Almighty declares His Oneness in these words:

"Certainly they disbelieve who say: 'Surely Allah is the third (person) of three;' there is no god but the one Allah...." (5:73)

Associating things with divine attributes means believing that His attributes, like His knowledge, or, might, are separate from, or, in addition to, His All-Perfect Self. The ‘Ashari’s of Abu'l-Hasan ‘Ali Ibn Isma'il Ashari Basari, are reported by your own leading ‘ulama’, like ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad in his book Al-Kashf and Minhaju'l-Adilla fi Aqa'idi'l-Milla (The Open Just Revelation of the Beliefs of Nations), page 57, to believe that the attributes of Allah are in addition to His All-Perfect Self, and are eternal.

So, anyone who believes that any quality, or, attribute of His is in any way an addition to His All-Perfect Self is a polytheist. Every attribute of His is essential to Him. Polytheism in one's actions means to associate someone with His Ever-Independent Will. The Jews believe that Allah created creatures, and then kept Himself aloof from His creatures.

In condemnation of these people, the following verse was revealed:

"And the Jews say: 'The hand of Allah is tied!' Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out; He expends as He pleases...." (5:64)

The ‘Galli’s or ‘Ghullat’ (extremists) form another group of polytheists. They are also called ‘Mufawwiza’. They believe that Allah has delegated His powers, or, entrusted all affairs to the Holy Imams. According to them, the Imams are the creators, and they also give us sustenance. Obviously, those who consider someone a partner in divine authority are polytheist.

Polytheism in prayer means deliberately turning one's attention during prayers toward a created being rather than toward Allah. If one intends to pray to a created being, he is a polytheist. The Holy Qur'an forbids it in these words.

“...whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not join anyone in the service of his Lord." (18:110)

This verse shows that the fundamental article of faith is that man should do whatever is good, and should not associate anyone with Allah in offering obedience, and worship to Him. In other words, he who offers prayers, or, performs the Hajj, or, does any good act merely to show to the public his righteousness, he is a polytheist.

He has associated others with Allah in the matter of performing his deeds. The vain display of good deeds is minor polytheism, which negates our good actions. It has been reported that the Holy Prophet said: "Abstain from minor Polytheism." People asked him, "O, Prophet of Allah, what is minor polytheism?"

He replied, "Al-riya wa's-sama'" (i.e., to show people, or, to let them hear of your worship of Allah). Also, the Holy Prophet said: "The worst thing which I fear for you is your hidden polytheism; so, rise above it since among my followers polytheism is more secret than the creeping of the ant on a hard stone in the dark night."

Again he said: "One who offers the ritual prayer in an ostentatious way, is a polytheist. One who keeps the fast, or, gives alms, or, performs the Hajj, or, frees a slave to show to the public his righteousness, or, to earn a good name is a polytheist." And, since this last line refers to matters of the heart, it has been included in hidden polytheism.

Hafiz: We note of your own statement that if someone makes an offering to any created being, he is a polytheist. So, the Shi’as are also polytheists since they make offerings to the Holy Imams, and their sons.

Well-Wisher: If we wish to determine the faith of a community, we should not rely on the uninformed people of that community. We should study their reliable books. If you wish to study ‘Shi’as'ism’, don't start with ‘Shi’as’ beggars on roads, crying "O ‘Ali, O Imam ar-Ridha’", and on that ground declare that Shi’as are polytheists. Similarly, if ignorant people make pledges, or, offerings in the name of the Imams, or, their sons, you should not slander all of ‘Shi’as'ism’.

If you study ‘Shi’as’ books of jurisprudence, you will find that there is not a single trace of polytheism, or, absurdity. The insistence on the Oneness of Allah is manifest everywhere. The most famous books, Sharhe lum'a and Shara'i, are widely available, and you may study them.

In the Chapter "Offerings," the legal pronouncements of ‘Shi’as’ jurists are cited, both in the two works cited above and in many other publications. Since ‘nazr’ is a kind of prayer, it is essential that there should be an intention that it be for the sake of seeking nearness to Allah.

There are two conditions for a valid ‘nazr’: intention of the heart, and utterance, or, expression in prescribed words in whatever language it may be. Regarding the first condition, the intention of the heart must be for the sake of Allah.

The second condition completes the first condition; the person who makes the offering (nazr) must say in words that it is for Allah. For instance, if he pledges to keep a fast, or to give up drinking, he must make the intention using the prescribed words, which contain the word "Lillah" (for the sake of Allah), without which the offering is invalid.

If we make an offering not in the name of Allah, but, for someone else, whether he be dead, or, alive, or, if we include him with the name of Allah, even if he is an Imam or his son, the offering is not valid. If this is done deliberately and knowingly then it is evident polytheism, as is clear from the verse,

"...and not join anyone in the service of his Lord." (18:110)

‘Shi’as’ jurists agree that to make an offering in the name of any person, including Prophets or Imams, is wrong.

If it is done intentionally, it is polytheism. An offering must be made in the name of Allah, although we are authorized to do it whenever we like. For instance, if someone in the name of Allah takes a goat to a particular house or place of worship or to the tomb of an Imam or son of an Imam, and sacrifices it, there is no harm in it.

Also, if he pledges and gives money, or, clothes in the name of Allah to a certain ‘Sayyid’, a descendant of the Prophet, or gives alms to an orphan or beggar, there is no harm in it.

Of course, if he pledges to make an offering simply for the sake of the Prophet or an Imam, a son of an Imam, or for some other person, it is forbidden. If done intentionally, it is polytheism. It is the duty of every prophet or religious authority to admonish people as the Holy Qur'an says,

"Say: Obey Allah and obey the Apostle; but if you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that which is imposed on you...." (24:54)

It is people's duty to hear what the Prophet of Allah says and to act upon it. If, however, someone does not care to follow divine precepts, and does not act on them, it does not harm the faith or the principles in which the faith is founded.

The second kind of polytheism is hidden polytheism, such as making a display of our prayers, or, other forms of obedience to Allah. The difference between this polytheism and polytheism in prayers is that in the case of polytheism in prayers we associate some other thing, or, being with Allah.

If someone directs his attention towards anything other than Allah, in the ritual prayer, or if by the suggestion of shaitan, he has a picture of a false deity in his mind, or if his guide is the center of his attention, then he is a polytheist.

Nothing except Allah, should be the object of attention in our worship. The Prophet said that if someone does a good deed and makes someone else a partner with Allah in it, then his whole deed is for the partner.

Allah hates that action as well as its doer. It has also been reported that the Holy Prophet said that if someone offers the ritual prayer, observes a fast, or performs the Pilgrimage and has the idea that by his doing so the people will praise him, "then verily, he has made a partner with Allah in his action."

It has also been reported from Imam Ja'far Sadiq that if someone performs an action for fear of Allah, or for the recompense in the hereafter, and includes in it the pleasure of a human being, then the doer of that action is a polytheist.

One kind of polytheism is that which relates to causation since most people base their hopes, and fears on secondary causes. This is also polytheism, but it is pardonable. Polytheism means to think that power lies intrinsically in secondary causes.

For instance, the sun nourishes many things in the world, but if one considers this power to be inherent in the sun, then this is polytheism. However, if we believe that the power of the sun is given to it by Allah, and that the sun is only a secondary means of His munificence, then this is never polytheism.

It is rather a form of worship since to pay attention to the signs of Allah is a prelude to attending to Allah. A reference has been made in the verses of the Holy Qur'an to the fact that we should ponder the signs of Allah since this leads the attention toward Allah. In the same way, reliance on secondary causes (a tradesman's attention to trade, or a farmer's attention to his farm) make one a polytheist if he thereby diverts his attention from Allah.

Based on the above explanation of polytheism, which of the examples cited do you consider to be applicable to Shi’as? In what way, from the point of view of prayer, faith, or the Shi’as traditions that you have seen, can they be charged with polytheism?

Hafiz: I admit that all you have said is correct, but if you would just take the trouble to think for a moment, you will agree that to rely on the imams is polytheism. Since we should not seek any human means of approach to Allah, we should invoke Allah directly for help.

Well-Wisher: It is strange that you ignore what I have been saying here all along. Is it polytheism to make requests of other people for the fulfillment of our desires? If this were true, the whole of humanity is polytheistic. If to seek help from others is polytheism, why did the Prophet seek help from people? You should study the verses of the Holy Qur'an so that you may know what is true and correct.

The following verses are worth attention:

"He said: 'O chiefs which of you can bring to me her throne before they come to me in submission?' One audacious among the Jinn said: 'I will bring it to you before you rise up from your place; and most surely I am strong (and) trusty for it.' One who had the knowledge of the Book said: 'I will bring it to you in the twinkling of an eye.' Then when he saw it settled beside him, he said: 'This is of the grace of my Lord....'" (27:38-40)

The bringing of the throne of Bilqis (Queen of Sheba) to Solomon was impossible for every creature. Admittedly, it was unusual, and the Prophet Solomon, despite his knowing that it required divine power, did not ask Almighty Allah to bring the throne, but asked mere creatures to help him.

This fact shows that seeking others' help is not polytheism. Allah, the first cause, is the Creator of the causes of this world. Polytheism is a matter of the heart. If a man asks for someone's help and does not consider him Allah, or His partner, it is not forbidden.

This situation is common everywhere. People go to the houses of others, and ask them for help without taking the name of Allah. If I go to a physician, and ask him to cure me, am I a polytheist? Again, if a man is drowning, and he cries for help, is he a polytheist? So, please be fair, and do not misconstrue facts. The whole Shi’as community believes that if anyone considers the descendants of the Prophet as being Allah or partners in His Self, he is surely a polytheist.

You might have heard Shi’as in trouble crying, "O ‘Ali, help me!" "O Husain, help me!" This does not mean that they are saying "O Allah ‘Ali, help me!" "O Allah Husain, help me!" But the fact is that since the world is a house of secondary causes, we consider them the means of deliverance from troubles. We seek the help of Allah through them.

Hafiz: Instead of invoking Allah directly, why do you invoke the means?

Well-Wisher: Our permanent attention regarding our desires, distresses, and anguish is fixed upon Allah, the Absolute. But the Holy Qur'an says that we should reach Almighty Allah, through some means of approach.

"O you who believe! Do your duty to Allah and seek the means of approach to Him." (5:35)

We Shi’as do not regard the descendants of the Prophet as the solution to all our problems. We regard them as the most pious of the servants of Allah and as a means of divine bounty. We attach ourselves to that exalted family according to the injunction of the Prophet.

Hafiz: Why do you say that the words "means of approach" in the above verse refer to the descendants of the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: In many hadith, the Prophet recommended to us that in our troubles we invoke his descendants as a means of approach to Allah. Many of your ‘ulama’, like Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, in his ‘Nuzulu'l-Qur'an fi ‘Ali’ (Revelations in the Qur'an about ‘Ali), Hafiz Abu Bakr Shirazi in his ‘Ma Nazala mina'l-Qur'an fi ‘Ali’ and Imam Ahmad Tha'labi in his ‘Tafsir’ (Commentary) say that ‘wasilat’ (means of approach) in the above verse means the descendants of the Prophet.

This reference has been apparent from many ‘hadith’ of the Prophet. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, one of your respected ‘ulama’, says in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume IV, page 79, that Bibi Fatima Zahra referred to the meaning of this verse in the presence of the ‘Muhajirs’ and ‘Ansars’, while delivering her address in connection with the usurpation of her estate of Fadak, in these words:

"I praise Allah for Whose Dignity and Light the residents of the skies and the earth seek means of approach towards Him. Among His creation we are the means of approach."

Among the many accepted arguments about the lawfulness of our following the descendants of the Prophet is the ‘Hadith Thaqalain’, whose authenticity has been acknowledged by both the sects. The Prophet said: "If you keep yourselves attached to these two, never, never will you go astray after me."

Hafiz: I think you are mistaken when you say that this hadith is authentic, and that it has been accepted by all since it is unknown by our great ulama’. To prove this I may say that the greatest narrator of hadith of our sect, Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Bukhari, does not record it in his ‘Sahih’, which is the most authentic book after the Holy Qur'an.

Well-Wisher: I am not mistaken about it. The authenticity of this Holy hadith has been acknowledged by your own ulama’. Even Ibn Hajar Makki, for all his intolerance and prejudice, accepts it as true.

You should consult Sawa'iq Muhriqa (Part II Chapter II, pages 89-90, under verse 4) in which, after quoting the statements of Tirmidhi, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tibrani, and Muslim, he says: "Know that the hadith concerning attachment to the Thaqalain (the Holy descendants of the Prophet and the Holy Qur'an) has been narrated in many ways. The narrators of this hadith number more than twenty companions of the Prophet."

Then he says that there is some difference in the manner in which this tradition has been narrated. Some say that it was narrated when the Prophet was on his last Hajj at Arafa; some say it was related in Medina, when the Holy Prophet was on his death bed, and his room was full of his companions; others say that it was narrated at Ghadir al-Khum; and some say it was narrated after his return from Ta'if. After saying all this, he (Hajar Makki) himself comments that there is no significant difference in the hadith itself.

As for all the different occasions, it is probable that the Prophet recounted this tradition time and again in order to emphasize the greatness of the Holy Qur'an, and his Holy descendants. You said that since Bukhari has not recorded this hadith in his ‘Sahih’, its authenticity is questionable.

But this hadith, although not recorded by Bukhari, has been generally quoted by the major ulama’ of your sect, including Muslim Ibn Hujjaj and other authors of the six collections of Traditions, who have exhaustively dealt with it in their books and do not rely solely on the collection of Bukhari.

If you acknowledge the justice of all your own ulama’, all of whom were recognized by the Sunnis of the past, you should accept as true the hadith, which for some reason has not been recorded by Bukhari.

Hafiz: There was no motive behind that. Bukhari was very cautious in the matter of recording reports. He was a careful scholar, and if he found the hadith, from the point of view of its text or source, to be harmful or unacceptable to common sense, he did not record it.

Well-Wisher: As the proverb goes: "Love for something makes a man blind and deaf." The respected Sunnis are mistaken here. You are too enthusiastic in your love for Imam Bukhari. You say that he was a very minute scrutinizer of facts and that the reports of his Sahih are reliable and deserve the rank of revelation. But the fact is otherwise. The chain of reports mentioned by Bukhari consists of persons who are often condemned as liars.

Hafiz: Your assertion is false. You denigrate Bukhari's learning and ability, which is an insult to the whole Sunni Sect.

Well-Wisher: If criticism based on knowledge is an insult, then many of your own most distinguished ulama’ are men who have insulted the high position of learning and erudition.

I would advise you to study for yourself the books written by great authors and ulama’ of your sect who have made comments on Bukhari's Sahih, e.g., Al-Lu'‘Ali'l-Masnu'a fi hadithi'l-Muzu'a by Suyuti, ‘Mizanu'l-Ibtidal’, and ‘Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak’ of Dhahabi; ‘Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a’ by Ibn Jauzi; ‘The History of Baghdad’, compiled by Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Khatib Baghdadi, and other books of “Rijal” (namely, treatises on the character of narrators of Traditions) by many of your great ulama’. If you read these books, you will not dare say that I have insulted Imam Bukhari.

What I have said is this: the two books, ‘Sahih’ Muslim and ‘Sahih’ Bukhari, contain hadith narrated by liars. If you study ‘Sahih’ Muslim and ‘Sahih’ Bukhari in the light of the books of ‘Rijal’, you will find that they have recorded many hadith reported from men who were great liars, e.g., Abu Huraira, the notorious liar, Ikrima Kharji, Sulayman Ibn Amr, and others of the same category. Bukhari was not so cautious in recording hadith as you think.

He did not record the Hadith al-Thaqalain, which others have done, but he had no hesitation in recording ludicrous and insulting stories about the Prophet Moses slapping the face of the Angel of Death, the Prophet Moses' running away naked after a stone, and Allah's visibility.

Consider another ridiculous, and insulting story recorded by Bukhari in his ‘Sahih’, Volume II, Chapter ""Al-Lahr Bi'l-Harb," page 120, and by Muslim in his ‘Sahih’ Volume I, quoting Abu Huraira as saying that on the Eid (a holiday) some Sudanese nomads gathered in the Mosque of the Prophet.

They entertained spectators with their sport and performances. The Prophet asked A’ysha if she would like to witness the performances. She said she would. The Prophet let her mount on his back in such a way that she had her head over his shoulders and her face on the head of the Prophet. In order to amuse A’ysha, the Holy Prophet was asking the entertainers to stage a better dance. At last A’ysha became tired, and the Holy Prophet let her get down on the ground!

Judge for yourself whether such a story is not insulting. If Bukhari was so cautious about recording facts, was it fair on his part to record such foolish stories in his ‘Sahih’. But even now you characterize these books as the most authentic ones after the Holy Qur'an.

Of course Bukhari took special care to omit the matter of the Imamate and the Vicegerency of ‘Ali, as well as the matter of the Ahlul Bayt. Probably he feared such information might some day be used as a weapon against the opponents of the Ahlul Bayt.

So when we compare the ‘Sahih’ Bukhari with other ‘Siha, we come to the conclusion that on this topic, the Ahlul Bayt, a hadith, however authentic, and fully supported by writers in the light of the Holy Qur'an it may be, Bukhari has purposely failed to record it.

For instance, there are many verses of the Holy Qur'an, revelations which have a direct bearing on the hadith (‘Hadith al-Wilaya’ on the Day of Ghadir; ‘Hadith al-Inzar al-Yaumu'd-Dar’; ‘Hadithu'l-Muwakhat’; ‘Hadith al-Safina’; ‘Hadith al-Babu'l-Hitta’, etc.) which concern the respect for, and vicegerency of, the descendants of the Holy Prophet.

These have been avoided scrupulously by Bukhari. And on the other hand, those so-called "ahadith" which humiliate the prophets, particularly our Prophet, and his chaste descendants, are recorded in his book without the least consideration that they have been reported by liars.

As for the ‘hadith of Thaqalain’ (two weighty things), which Bukhari has not included in his collection, the other authentic books of your sect have related it. In fact, even the great traditionist, Muslim, who is regarded as being equal to Bukhari, has also related it. The other scholars who have related this tradition are the following: Muslim ibn Hajjaj in his ‘Sahih’, Volume VII, page 122; Abu Dawud in his ‘Sahih’; Tirmidhi in his ‘Sunan’, Part 2, page 307; Nisa'i in his ‘Khasa'is’, page 30;

There are several other scholars of your sect whose names I cannot relate in this meeting because of the lack of time. Many of your scholars have related this important hadith from the Holy Prophet so commonly and with unbroken continuity of narration from one to the other that it has attained the status of a regularly narrated hadith. According to this hadith, the Prophet said the following: "I leave among you two weighty things: the Book of Allah and my progeny.

If you keep yourselves attached to these two, never, never will you go astray. These two will never be separated from each other until they meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar."

Based on this genuine hadith, we hold that we should seek adherence to the Holy Qur'an, and the Ahlul Bayt of Muhammad.

Sheikh: This hadith of the Prophet has been related by Salih Ibn Musa Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ishaq, through his accredited chain of narrators saying that Abu Huraira reported it in this way: "I leave behind me two great things: The Book of Allah (the Holy Qur'an) and my sunna (tradition)...."

Well-Wisher: You again quote the hadith from the same wicked person who has been rejected by critics of the Shi’as (like Dhahabi, Yahya, Imam Nisa'i, Bukhari and Ibn Adi, etc.). Aren't you satisfied with the reliable references that I have made from your own great ulama’ regarding this hadith? You quote an unacceptable version of the hadith even though both Shi’as and Sunnis have accepted that the Holy Prophet used the words "the Book of Allah and my progeny," and not "my sunna."

In fact, "Book" (Qur'an) and "sunna" (tradition) both require interpretation. Traditions, therefore, cannot explain the Holy Qur'an. So the progeny of the Prophet, who are the equals of the Holy Qur'an, are the real interpreters of the Qur'an, as well as the traditions (sunna) of the Prophet.

Another reason we seek attachment to the descendants of the Prophet is the authentic ‘Hadith al-Safina’, which has been narrated by all of your great ulama’, almost without exception, and with unbroken continuity.

Many other great scholars of your sect have related that the Holy Prophet said: "The likeness of my Ahlul Bayt is that of the Ark of Noah. He who gets into it is saved; he who turns away from it will be drowned and lost."

Imam Muhammad Ibn Idris Shafi'i has referred to the authenticity of this hadith in his couplets which Allama Fazil Ajib recorded in his ‘Zakhiratu'l-Ma'al’. Imam Shafi'i, who is recognized as one of the distinguished religious scholars of the Sunni sect, admits that our attachment to the purified family of the Prophet is the means of our deliverance because, of the seventy sects of Islam, the sect which follows the descendants of the Prophet is the only one to secure deliverance.

You said that seeking means to reach Allah is polytheism. If this were true, why did Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab seek Allah's help through the descendants of the Prophet?

Hafiz: Caliph ‘Umar never did so.

Well-Wisher: In times of need ‘Umar sought the help of the descendants of the Prophet, invoked Allah through them, and his wishes were fulfilled. I refer to only two such occasions. Ibn Hajar Makki writes in his ‘Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa’, after verse 14 (from The History of Damascus) that in the 17th year of the Hijra people prayed for rain but to no effect.

Caliph ‘Umar said that he would pray for rain the next day through the means of approach to Allah. Next morning he went to Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet and said: "Come out so that we may invoke Allah through you for rain."

Abbas asked ‘Umar to sit for some time so that the means of approach to Allah could be provided. The Bani Hashim (Ahlul Bayt) were then informed. Abbas then came out with ‘Ali, Imam Hasan, and Imam Husain. Other Bani Hashim were behind them. Abbas asked ‘Umar that no one else be added to their group. Then they went to the place of prayers where Abbas raised his hands for prayers, and said: "O Allah, you created us, and you know about our actions.

O Allah, as you were kind to us in the beginning, so be kind to us in the end." Jabir says that their prayers had not ended when clouds appeared, and it began to rain. Before they could reach their homes, they were drenched.

Bukhari also reports that once during the time of famine ‘Umar Ibn Khattab invoked Allah through Abbas Ibn Abdu'l-Muttalib and said: "We betake ourselves to our Prophet's uncle with you; so Allah, send down rain." Then it began to rain. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Sharh Nahfu'l-Balagha (Egyptian edition), page 256, writes that Caliph ‘Umar went along with Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, to invoke Allah for rain.

In his prayers for rain, Caliph ‘Umar said: "O Allah, we betake ourselves to your Prophet's uncle and of his ancestors and of their remaining respectable men. So guard the position of your Prophet through his uncle. We were guided toward You through the Prophet so that we may seek their help and do repentance."

If to seek out the descendants of the Prophet and to call upon them for our needs in the way of Allah is polytheism, then Caliph ‘Umar was the first polytheist. The Ahlul al-Muhammad, from the time of the Prophet to this day, have been the means of approach in our prayers and invocations of Allah. We regard them only as very pious people and the nearest ones to Allah.

Therefore, we consider them a means of our approach to Allah. And the best proof for this is our books of invocation prescribed by our infallible Imams. We accept the instructions of our Imams.

I have two books with me: ‘Zadu'l-Ma'ad’ by Allama Majlisi and ‘Hidayatu'z-Za'irin’ by Sheikh Abbas Qummi, which I present to you for your consideration. (Both Hafiz and the Sheikh studied the books.)

They read the ‘Du'a al-Tawassul’ (invocation of seeking nearness), and they found that the Prophet's family was part of the invocation. Everywhere they were mentioned as means of approach to Allah. At that time Mulla Abdu'l-Hayy read the whole of ‘Du'a al-Tawassul’, prescribed by the purified Imams and quoted by Muhammad Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi.

This is an invocation of Allah. Just as ‘Ali has been addressed here, all of the Imams have been addressed in the same manner. The influence of the family of the Prophet is sought to approach Allah. They are addressed in this manner: "O our master and guide! We seek your help to reach Allah. O most respected in the eyes of Allah Almighty: recommend us to Him." The whole family of the Prophet has been addressed in a like manner.

When these invocations were being read, some Sunni gentleman exclaimed with wonder and sorrow at what a great misunderstanding people had created. Well-Wisher asked: "Is there any trace of polytheism in these invocations? Is not Allah's Holy name present everywhere? How many of your ignorant and intolerant people have murdered poor Shi’as believing that they had killed an infidel? The responsibility of these affairs lies squarely on ulama’ like yourselves.

Have you ever heard that a single Shi’as has ever murdered a Sunni? The fact is that the Shi’as ulama’ do not spread poison. They do not create enmity between Shi’as and Sunnis, and they regard murder as a great sin. In matters of difference of faith between them, they clarify positions through discussions based on knowledge, and logic, and let it be known through their talk that the Sunnis are their brothers. "

On the other hand, the deeds of the fanatical Sunni ulama’ are noteworthy. The followers of Abu Hanifa, Malik Ibn Anas, Muhammad Ibn Idris, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who have significant differences, call the followers of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib and Imam Ja'far Ibn Muhammad polytheists and infidels.

A great many learned and pious Shi’as were martyred on verdicts given by Sunni ulama’. Conversely, there is no such example of cruelty on the part of Shi’as ulama’. Your ulama’ often utter curses on Shi’as, but you will not find anywhere curses on the Sunnis in the books written by Shi’as ulama’.

Hafiz: You are not fair. You are stirring up hatred for nothing. Give a single example of a learned Shi’as murdered on the verdict of our ulama’! Who from our ulama’ has uttered curses on the Shi’as?

Well-Wisher: If I were to go into the details of the deeds of your ulama’ or your common people, one meeting would not be long enough. I will refer only to a few examples regarding their deeds so that you may know that I am not stirring up hatred, but revealing facts.

If you study the books of your fanatical ulama’, you will find sections where they have cursed Shi’as. For instance, consult the books of Tafsir of Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi. Whenever he had the occasion, e.g., concerning the verses of ‘Wilaya, he repeatedly writes "Curse be on the Rafizis, curse be on the Rafizis!" But our ulama’ have never written such things against our Sunni brothers.

An example of the cruel treatment of your ulama’ regarding Shi’as men of learning is the verdict of two great Qazis of Syria (Burhanu'd-Din Maliki and Ibad Ibn Jama'at Shafi'i) against one of the great Shi’as jurists, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Jamalu'd-Din Makki Amili. That great jurist was known in his time for his piety and knowledge of jurisprudence.

An example of his scholarship is his book, ‘Lum'a’, which he wrote in seven days without having with him any book on jurisprudence except ‘Mukhtasar Nafi'’. Moreover, the ulama’ of the four schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali), were among his pupils.

Because of the oppression by the Sunnis, this gentleman often practiced ‘Taqiyya’ (dissimulation in the face of danger), and did not openly declare his Shi’as'ism. The great Qazi of Syria, Ibad Ibn Jama'at, who nursed a grudge against him, spoke ill of him to the ruler of Syria (Baidmar), and accused him of being a ‘Rafizi’, and ‘Shi’as’.

This learned scholar was arrested. After suffering imprisonment and torture for a year, on the verdict of those two qazis (Ibnu'l-Jama'at and Burhanu'd-Din) he was murdered, and his body hanged on the gallows. Since they declared that a ‘Rafizi’, and a polytheist was on the gallows, the common people stoned the body. Afterward, the body was burned, and the ashes scattered.

Among the ulama’ and the pride of Shi’as jurists in Syria in the 10th century Hijri, was Sheikh Zainu'd-Din Ibn Nuru'd-Din ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad Amili. He was well known among both friends and foes for his learning and integrity. A prolific author, he kept aloof from the world and wrote 200 books on various subjects. Although he led a secluded life, the Sunni ulama’ developed animosity towards him, jealous of his popularity among the people.

The chief among his opponents was Qazi Sa'ida, who wrote to King Sultan Salim the following complaint: "Verily, there lives in the territory of Syria a man who is an innovator, one who does not belong to any one of the four schools of law."

Sultan Salim ordered that this jurist be presented to the court at Istanbul. He was arrested in Masjidu'l-Haram and was kept prisoner in Mecca for forty days. On the sea journey to Istanbul, he was beheaded and his body was thrown into the sea. Only his head was sent to the king.

Respected people! I beseech you in the Name of Allah to say whether you have ever heard of such behavior on the part of the Shi’as ulama’ towards a Sunni because he did not follow the Shi’as school of law. What argument can you advance to prove that if a man deviates from any of the four schools of law, he is an infidel and his murder is obligatory?

Is it reasonable to follow schools of law which came into being centuries after the Prophet, while those who follow the law which has existed since the time of the Holy Prophet are ordered be murdered?

For Allah's sake please say whether the four Imams - Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal - were alive during the lifetime of the Prophet. Did they obtain the fundamentals of the faith from the Prophet directly?

Hafiz: No one ever claimed this to be so.

Well-Wisher: Was not the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali a constant associate of the Prophet, and was he not declared to be the gate of the City of Knowledge?

Hafiz: He certainly was one of the dignified companions of the Prophet, and in some respects he was superior to them all.

Well-Wisher: Are we not justified, therefore, in holding that to follow ‘Ali is obligatory? The Prophet himself said that obeying ‘Ali was obeying him and that ‘Ali was the gate of the City of Knowledge? The Prophet also said that whoever wanted to gain knowledge should go to ‘Ali's door.

Also, according to the ‘Hadith al-Thaqalain’ and the ‘Hadith al-Safina’, which are recognized by both Sunnis and Shi’as, deviation from the path shown by the descendants of the Prophet will lead to our ruin. Dis-obedience to, or antagonism against, the family of the Prophet, is tantamount to disobedience to the Prophet himself.

In spite of all this, the Shi’as ulama’ have never shown such intolerance towards even the common Sunnis, not to speak of their ulama’. We have always exhorted the Shi’as that the Sunnis are our brothers in Islam, and we that should remain united.

On the other hand, the Sunni ulama’ have often incited their people, saying that Shi’as are innovators, Rafizis, Ghalis, or Jews. They say that, since the Shi’as do not follow one of four Sunni jurists (Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, or Ahmad Ibn Hanbal), they are infidels. The fact is that those who follow the Prophet's progeny are rightly guided.

The Sunni ulama’ proclaimed that the Shi’as were infidels and that their lives could be taken according to religious law. The Amirs of Afghanistan acted in like manner. In 1267 A.H. on Ashura (the 10th of Muharram), the Sunnis attacked the Imambara in Qandahar, where the Shi’as were mourning the murder of the grandson of the Prophet.

They brutally murdered many Shi’as, including children, and plundered their property. For years the Shi’as led miserable lives and were prohibited from observing their religious rites. On the day of Ashura, a few of them would go into underground halls and secretly mourn Husain's martyrdom and the others who were slaughtered on the plains of Karbala. It was King Amanullah Khan who removed the ban on Shi’as and treated them kindly.

In the cemetery of Akbarabad (Agra), India, there lies one of the most pious and learned jurists of the Shi’as, Qazi Sayyid Nurullah Shustari. He was savagely murdered at the age of 70 in 1019 A.H. by King Jahangir, following a verdict from the Sunni ulama’ that he was a Rafizi.

Hafiz: You are attacking us without any reason. I am myself greatly shocked to hear the excessively harsh behavior of ignorant people, but the practices of the Shi’as, too, were responsible for such events.

Well-Wisher: May I know what the Shi’as did which warranted murder?

Hafiz: Every day thousands of people stand before the tombs of the dead and invoke them for assistance. Isn't this practice an example of worshipping the dead? Why do the ulama’ not object when millions of them put their faces on the ground prostrate in worship of the dead? I wonder at how you still call these things monotheism.

As the discussion with Mawlana Hafiz continued, the Hanafi Jurist, Agha Sheikh Abdu-s-Salam, was studying ‘Hidayatu'z-Za'irin’. He said with great emphasis, "Look here! (pointing to the book). Your ‘ulama’ say that when the pilgrims have finished their ziarat (pious visit) in the mausoleums of the Imams, they should offer two units of ‘Namaz al-Ziarat’. Perhaps they do not intend it for the name of Allah; otherwise, what does ‘Namaz al-Ziarat’ mean?

Is it not polytheism to offer the ritual prayer for the Imam? Pilgrims who stand with their faces towards the tomb, and offer prayers are the best proof of their polytheism. This is your authentic book. Can you defend your position?

Well-Wisher: You are indulging in childish talk! Have you ever been on such a pilgrimage, and seen the pilgrims firsthand?

Sheikh: No.

Well-Wisher: So, how can you say that the pilgrims offer prayers with their faces towards the tomb, and that this prayer of ‘Ziarat’ is a sign of polytheism?

Sheikh: This book says that they should offer Namaz al-Ziarat for the Imam.

Well-Wisher: Let me have a look at it. Let me read the instructions concerning ‘Ziarat’, until we reach the subject of prayer, which is the point of your objection. Whenever you find any trace of polytheism, please point it out. And, if you find signs of monotheism from top to bottom, do not feel sorry for that, but say that you were under a misunderstanding. The book is here before you.

The instructions are as follows: "When the pilgrim reaches the ditch of Kufa, he stands there and recites the following: 'Allah is Most Great, Allah is Most Great, the Possessor of Greatness, Sublimity, and Eminence. Allah is Most Great, the Possessor of Greatness, Holiness, Glory and Grace. Allah is Most Great above that which I fear. Allah is Most Great. He is my Support; on Him do I rely and in Him lays my hope, and towards Him I turn.'

When the pilgrim reaches the Gate of Najaf, he should recite: 'Praise be to Allah, who guided us to this. We would not have been guided if Allah had not guided us.'

When he reaches the Gate of the Sacred Courtyard, he should recite, after praising Allah: 'I bear witness that there is no god except Allah, the One. He has no partner. I also bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Prophet. He brought us truth from Allah. I also bear witness that ‘Ali is a servant of Allah and brother of the Prophet of Allah. Allah is Most Great, Allah is Most Great, Allah is Most Great.

There is no god except Allah, and Allah is Most Great. All praise is due to Allah for His guidance and His support to respond to what He has revealed on the way to Him.'

When the pilgrim reaches the gate of the mausoleum, he should recite: 'I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, the One. He has no partner with Him....' until the end.

When, after having asked permission of Allah, the Prophet, and the Imams, the pilgrim reaches the inside of the mausoleum, he recites various Ziarats which contain salutations to the Holy Prophet and the Commander of the Faithful. After Ziarat, he offers six rak'ats of ritual prayer and, two rak'ats for the Commander of the Faithful, and two rak'ats each for the Prophets Adam and Noah, who are buried in the same precincts."

Is the performance of the ritual prayer as an offering for the souls of parents and other believers not enjoined upon us? Are these injunctions polytheism? It is for humanity's sake also that when a man goes to see a friend he gives him some present.

There is a Chapter in the books of both sects in which the Prophet enjoins us to offer presents to the believers. So when a pilgrim reaches the tomb of his beloved master and knows that the thing which he loved most was the prayer, he offers two rak'ats of prayer in his approach to Allah and offers the prayer as a present to the Holy soul of the master. Is this polytheism? After having read the principles underlying the prayer, read also the invocation after the prayer, so that all your doubts may be removed.

The practice of the invocation is that after completion of the prayer at the head of the tomb of the buried Imam, with our faces towards the Ka'ba (not towards the tomb), we recite the following invocation: "O Allah! I have made a present of this prayer to my leader and master, your Prophet and the brother of your Prophet, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib. O Allah, send your blessings on Muhammad and his progeny. Accept these two rak'ats of prayer from me, and recompense me, as you would recompense the doers of good deeds.

O Allah! I offered this prayer for Your sake and bowed down before You, and prostrated in obeisance to You. You are One Who has no partner. It is not permissible to offer prayer or to bow down or prostrate before any but You. You are Allah, the Great, and there is no god except You."

Respected gentlemen! For Allah's sake, be fair. From the time a pilgrim sets his foot on the soil of Najaf, until after he offers his ‘Namaz al-Ziarat’, he is busy remembering Allah.

Sheikh: It is strange that do you not see here written: "Kiss the doorstep and enter the haram (interior) of the mausoleum." We have heard that when the pilgrims reach the doors of the mausoleum of their Imams, they prostrate in obeisance. Is this prostration not for ‘Ali? Is it not polytheism when we prostrate before someone other than Allah?

Well-Wisher: If I were you, I would not say a word. I would keep quiet until the last meeting of this debate, and listen to the logic of my responses. But I will tell you briefly once more that kissing the threshold or the floor of the mausoleums of the Imams is not polytheism.

You have misinterpreted the word "kissing", and consider it equivalent to prostration. When you read the book in our presence, and make such radical changes, I wonder how you will slander us when you are alone addressing the uninformed masses.

The instructions contained in this book and in all other books regarding invocations and places of Ziarat are that the pilgrim, by way of showing respect, should kiss the threshold, not prostrate. How can you consider kissing, and prostration the same thing? And, where have you seen, either in the Holy Qur'an or in any hadith, that kissing the threshold of the mausoleums of a prophet or an Imam is prohibited?

So if you have no reasonable reply to this question, you should not waste our time. And, as you say, you have "heard" that the pilgrims prostrate in obeisance. You have not actually seen this. The Qur'an says:

"O you who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then are sorry for what you have done." (49:6)

According to this injunction of the Holy Qur'an, we should not rely on the statement of a wicked person. We should make strenuous efforts to know the truth, even undertake journeys if necessary in order to ascertain the truth of a report firsthand. When I was in Baghdad, I went to the tombs of Abu Hanifa and Sheikh Abdu'l-Qadir Jilani and saw what the people did. It was more serious than what you described regarding Shi’as practices, but I never talked about it.

When I reached the tomb of Abu Hanifa at Mu'azza'm, I found a group of Sunnis repeatedly kissing the floor, instead of the threshold, and rolling on the ground. But since they did not appear to be malicious and because I had no grounds for condemning them, I never mentioned the incident to anyone. I understood that they were doing so out of love, not as worship.

Respected sir! Certainly no pious Shi’as ever prostrated for anyone but Allah. If, however, we fall down on the ground in a manner similar to prostration and rub our foreheads on it (without intention of worship), this is insignificant. To bow down before a respected person without considering him Allah or to fall down on the ground and rub one's face on it, is not polytheism. It is the result of intense love.

Sheikh: How is that when we fall down on the ground and put our forehead on it that this action would not amount to prostration?

Well-Wisher: Prostration depends on intention, and intention is a matter of the heart. Only Allah knows our heart's intentions. For example, we may see people lying down on the ground in the manner of ritual prostration. It is true that prostration to anyone but Allah is not proper, even though it be without any intention. However, since we are not aware of their heart's intention, we cannot call it ritual prostration.

Therefore, prostration in a manner similar to the ritual prostration (but without its intention), to show reverence to someone is not polytheism. For example, the Prophet Joseph's brothers prostrated before him. At that time, two Prophets, Jacob and Joseph, were present, but they did not forbid them to do so.

Allah says in the Chapter of Joseph in the Holy Qur'an.

"And he raised his parents upon the throne, and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: 'O my father, this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true....'" (12:100)

Moreover, the Holy Qur'an says in several places that the Angels performed the prostration before the Prophet Adam. So if prostration is polytheism, then the brothers of the Prophet Joseph and the angels of Allah were all polytheists. Only the cursed Iblis (Satan) was a monotheist!

Now, I want to reply to the respected Hafiz, who said that invocation before the tombs of the Holy Imams is tantamount to worshipping the dead. You ask why the Shi’as seek help at the tombs of the Imams. Perhaps, you believe that there is no life after death and say, "What is dead is annihilated."

Allah describes in the Holy Qur'an this mistaken point of view, saying:

"There is naught but our life in this world; we die and we live and we shall not be raised again." (23:37)

As you all know, those who believe in Allah know that there is life after death. When a man dies, his body becomes lifeless, but, unlike the animals, his soul and sense of speech remain with similar, but purer bodies, and will be blessed or chastised in the transitory state (barzakh) or purgatory.

Martyrs and those killed in the way of Allah enjoy special blessings. This has been narrated in the Holy Qur'an.

"And reckon not that those who are killed in Allah's way to be dead; nay, they are alive (and) areprovided with sustenance from their Lord, rejoicing in what Allah has given them of His grace, andthey rejoice for the same of those who, (being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that theyshall have no fear, nor shall they grieve." (3:169-170)

I focus on the words,

"They are alive (and) are provided with sustenance from their Lord...." (3:169)

They reply to us, but since our hearing is blocked by the veils of the material world, we do not hear their voices. Accordingly, in the salutation (ziarat) to Imam Husain, we say, "I bear witness that you hear what I say and that you reply." Have you read sermon No. 85 of Nahju'l-Balagha?

The progeny of the Prophet are introduced as follows: "O, people, this is a saying of the Prophet: 'He who dies from among us is not dead, and he who decays (after dying) from among us does not really decay.'"1 That is, in the realm of light and spirituality, the Ahlul Bayt live and remain imperishable.

Accordingly, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali and Sheikh Muhammad Abduh, the famous mufti of Egypt, commenting on the above, say that the descendants of the Holy Prophet are not dead in the way others are. So, when we stand before the tombs of the Imams, we do not stand before the dead, and we do not address the dead. We stand before the living and speak to the living. Hence, we are not worshippers of the dead.

We worship Allah. Don't you believe that ‘Ali, Imam Husain, and the martyrs of Badr, Hunain, Uhud, and Karbala sacrificed their lives in the way of Allah for the sake of truth? Didn't they face the tyranny of the Quraish, the Bani Umayya, Yazid, and his followers, whose aim was to obliterate the religion?

Just as the firmness of the companions of the Prophet and the sacrifices of the martyrs of Badr, Hunain, and Uhud led to the defeat of infidelity, in the same way Imam Husain's firm resolve to sacrifice his life strengthened Islam. If the Imam had not stood firm against evil forces, the damned Yazid would have destroyed Islam and would have infused his infidelity into the Muslim community.

Sheikh: It is surprising that you call the caliph of the Muslims, Yazid Ibn Mu'awiya, an unbeliever. You should know that Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan, appointed him caliph. The second caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, and the third caliph, Uthman the oppressed, appointed Mu'awiya Amir of Syria.

Because of their ability and talent, people sincerely accepted them as caliphs. So your reference to the caliphs of the Muslims as unbelievers means that you have insulted not only all the Muslims who accepted them as caliphs but you have also insulted the previous caliphs, who sanction their being caliph or Amir.

Of course they made a mistake, a pardonable mistake, which occurred during their caliphate. The Prophet's grandson, Imam Husain, was murdered, but this was forgiven. Since they repented, Allah, the Merciful, excused them. Imam Ghazali and Damiri have elaborately dealt with this point in their books and have proven the purity of Caliph Yazid.

Well-Wisher: I never expected that your fanaticism would go so far as to defend the cause of damned Yazid. You say that since their predecessors thought it fit to make them Amir or ruler, that all Muslims should have accepted them.

This statement makes no sense. We say that a caliph should be pure (absolutely free from all sin) and divinely commissioned, so that we may not have to endure oppression. You say that Ghazali and Damiri have defended the position of Yazid. But they were as fanatical as you are.

No sensible person would every try to defend the actions of the cursed Yazid. You say that Yazid committed a "mistake" in murdering Imam Husain. But to murder the dearest son of the Prophet, along with 72 other people, including small children and old men, and to take the pious daughters of the Prophet prisoner bareheaded and barefaced, was not a mere "mistake." It was an unspeakable atrocity. Moreover, his crimes were not confined to this gruesome slaughter alone. There are many other instances of his infidelity.

Among the facts proving Yazid's infidelity are his own poetic couplets. For instance, he writes:

"If drinking (wine) is prohibited in the religion of Muhammad, let it be so; I will accept Christianity."

"It is this world alone for us. There is no other world. We should not be deprived of the pleasures of this world."

These couplets appear in the collection of his poetical works, and Abu'l-Faraj Ibn Jauzi has recorded them in his Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid. Again he says:

"One who frightens us with the story of doomsday, let him do so. These are false things which deprive us of all the pleasures of sound and music."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi writes in his ‘Tadhkira’, page 148, that when the descendants of the Prophet were brought as captives to Syria, Yazid was sitting in the second story of his palace. He recited the two following couplets:

"When the camel litters carrying prisoners appeared, a crow cawed (a bad omen in Arabia). I said: O crow, whether you caw or not, I have taken vengeance on the Prophet."

"Vengeance" refers to the fact that his elders and near relatives were killed in the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain. He avenged their deaths by killing the sons of the Prophet.

Another proof of his infidelity is that when he had a party to celebrate Husain's martyrdom, he recited the irreligious couplets of Abdullah Ibn Uzza Ba'ri. Sibt Ibn Jauzi, Abu Raihan, and others have written that Yazid wished for the presence of his ancestors, who were all infidels, and were killed in the battle of Badr on the order of the Prophet. Yazid said:

"I wish those of my clan who were killed at Badr, and those who had seen the people of the Khazraj clan wailing (in the battle of Uhud) on account of lancet wounds, were here.

They would have hailed me with loud cries and said: 'O Yazid, may your hands never be paralyzed' because I have killed the chiefs of his (the Prophet's) clan. I did so as revenge for Badr, which has now been completed.

The Bani Hashim only played a game with government. There has come no message from Allah, nor was anything revealed. I would not belong to the Khandaq family if I had not taken vengeance on the descendants of the Prophet. We avenged the murders of ‘Ali by killing his son, a horseman and a brave lion."

Most of your ulama’ regard Yazid as an infidel. Even Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and many other great ulama’ of your sect suggest that curses on him should be recited. Abdu'r-Rahman Abu'l-Faraj Ibn Jauzi has written a book on this subject, ‘Kitabu'l-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anidu'l-Mani'an La'n al-Yazid La'natullah’.

Only a few of the fanatical ulama’ of your sect, like Ghazali, have shown partiality to Yazid and have fabricated ludicrous objections in defense of him. However, the majority of your ulama’ have noted his irreligious, tyrannical behavior.

Muslim states that as caliph, Yazid attempted to do away with religion. Mas'udi, in his Muruju'z-Dhahab, Volume II, says that the character of Yazid was like that of Pharaoh, but that Pharaoh was more just to his subjects than Yazid was. Yazid's rule brought disgrace on the fair name of Islam.

His wickedness included drinking wine, murdering the Prophet's son, cursing the Prophet's successor, ‘Ali, demolishing the House of Allah (Masjidu'l-Haram), and mass killings. He committed countless transgressions against divine law, sins which are unforgivable.

Nawab: How was Yazid responsible for mass killings?

Well-Wisher: Many historians have related this fact. Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, page 63, says that some of the people of Medina went to Syria in 62 A.H. When they learned of the sinful deeds of Yazid, they returned to Medina, broke their allegiance to him, cursed him, and turned out his Governor, Uthman Ibn Abi Sufyan. Abdullah Ibn Hanzala (Ghusilu'l-Mala'ikat) said:

"O people, we did not revolt against Yazid until we verified that he was an irreligious man. He killed the descendants of the Prophet, illegally associates with mothers, daughters, and sisters, drinks wine, and does not offer the ritual prayer."

When this news reached Yazid, he sent a large army of Syrians under Muslim Ibn 'uqba against the people of Medina. The slaughter of Muslims continued for three days. Yazid's forces killed 700 noblemen of the Quraish, Muhajirs, and Ansars, and 10,000 common people. I am ashamed to say how the Muslims were humiliated. I will quote only one passage of Tadhkira, page 163, by Sibt Ibn Jauzi, reported by Abu'l-Hasan Mada'an: "After the mass slaughter of the people of Medina, 1,000 unmarried women gave birth to children."

Sheikh: These accounts indicate his sins. Sins are forgivable and may be condoned, and Yazid did show repentance. Allah, who is the Forgiver of sins, forgave him. So why do you always curse him and call him wicked?

Well-Wisher: Some lawyers go on arguing a client's case until the last moment because they have received fees from them, even though they know well the merits of the case. But I fail to understand why you are so interested in defending Yazid, in the face of his murders of Allah's Apostles and his slaughter of the people of Medina.

Moreover, your assertion that he showed repentance is not proven. Don't his denials of the main principles of Islam, the Day of Resurrection, the revelation, and prophethood merit our condemnation? Hasn't Allah cursed the oppressors?

If these arguments are not sufficient for the advocates of Yazid Ibn Mu'awiya, I will, with your permission, quote two hadith from your distinguished ulama’.

Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih, Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Abu'l-Faraj Ibn Jauzi in Kitabu'r-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkira al-Khawasu'l-Umma’, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’ and others quote the Holy Prophet as saying: "If anyone frightens and oppresses the people of Medina, Allah will frighten him (i.e., on the Day of Judgement). He will be cursed by Allah, by the angels, and by all humanity. And on the Day of Judgement, Allah will not accept any of his deeds."

The Prophet also said: "Curse be on him who frightens my city (the people of Medina)." Didn't this mass slaughter frighten the people of Medina? If it did, then acknowledge along with the Prophet, the angels, and all the people that that wicked malefactor was cursed and will go on being cursed until the Day of Judgement.

The majority of your ulama’ have cursed Yazid. Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i in ‘Kitabu'l-Ittihaf be Hubbi'l-Ashraf Raji' ba La'n al-Yazid’, page 20, writes that when the name of Yazid was mentioned before Mulla Sa'd Taftazani, he said: "Curse be on him, and on his companions, and helpers."

Allama Samhudi in his Jawahiru'l-Iqdain, is reported to have said: "The ulama’ in general have concurred that it is permitted to curse him who murdered Imam Husain, or who ordered him to be murdered, or who sanctioned his murder, or who agreed to his murder."

Ibn Jauzi, Abu Ya'la, and Salih Ibn Ahmad, arguing from the verses of the Holy Qur'an write that, "It is proven that cursing Yazid is permissible. It is the duty of all Muslims that they should know the rights that Imam Husain has over them, and how, with the strength of his suffering oppression and tyranny, he watered the tree of Islam with his own blood and the blood of his family. Otherwise, that blessed tree might have died because of the tyranny of the Bani Umayya. It was Husain who gave Islam a new life."

I regret that, instead of recognizing the services that these Holy people rendered for Islam, you raise objections about pilgrims who visit their tombs and call them worshippers of the dead. We often read that in the central places of countries, like Paris, London, Berlin, and Washington there are tombs honoring the "unknown soldier." It is said that, suffering the tyranny of the enemy and in defense of his country, he sacrificed his life. But there was no mark on his body or clothes to indicate his family or city.

Because he gave his life in defense of his country, even though he was unknown, he is worthy of respect. When a king or any prominent personality visits such cities, he visits the grave of the unknown soldier and places wreaths of flowers on it.

An unknown soldier receives much respect, but I regret that, instead of respecting the pilgrims who visit the tombs of learned, pious Muslims, we criticize them. Some of them knew the entire Qur'an by heart. They sacrificed their lives in the defense of Islam. These people include the trustees of Allah, the Holy Prophet, and descendants of the Holy Prophet.

Some Muslims have actually demolished such tombs and made tea on the chests placed over the graves! Such a tragedy occurred in 1216 A.H. on the Eidi'l-Ghadir, when most of the residents of Karbala go to Najaf for pilgrimage.

The ‘Wahhabis of Najaf attacked Karbala and murdered the Shi’as. They demolished the tombs of those who sacrificed their lives for the sake of Islam. About 5,000 residents of Karbala, including the ulama’, the elderly, women, children, were slaughtered.

The treasury of Imam Husain was looted and precious stores, gold lamps, and valuable carpets were taken. The precious chest above the tomb was burned and tea was made on it. Many people were taken away as prisoners. Woe be to such Muslims!

How regrettable it is that in all civilized countries the tombs of kings, intellectuals, and even unknown soldiers are respected, but Muslims, who are expected to show a better sense of the importance of the preservation of the tombs of those who are their pride, plunder and destroy them like savages. In Mecca and Medina the Wahabis destroyed the tombs of the martyrs of Uhud, including that of Hamza, the ancestors of the Holy Prophet, like Abdu'l-Muttalib, Abdullah, and others.

They also destroyed the tombs of the family of the Prophet, his sons, like Imam Hasan, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, Imam Muhammad Baqir, Imam Ja'far Sadiq, Bibi Fatima, daughter of the Holy Prophet, and many others of the Bani Hashim and distinguished ulama’. Still they call themselves Muslims.

Of course they construct huge mausoleums for their own great men and kings. The fact is that the ulama’ of both sects have quoted many hadith inviting us to visit the graves of the faithful, so that the tombs may be saved from destruction. The Holy Prophet himself visited the graves of the faithful and invoked Allah for their deliverance.

Do you think that the exalted family of the Prophet who gave their lives in the way of religion are martyrs? If you say they are not martyrs, what is your argument? If they are martyrs, how can you call them "dead?" The Holy Qur'an states:

"They are alive (and) are provided with sustenance from their Lord." (3:169)

So according to the Holy Qur'an and the hadith, those Holy people are alive. Hence, we are not worshippers of the dead. We do not salute the dead, we praise the living. And no Shi’as, educated or uneducated, regards them as the sole remover of his difficulties.

He regards them as pious servants of Allah and a means of approach to Allah. We place our desires before the righteous Imams so that they may invoke Allah to show kindness to us. When we say, "O ‘Ali, help me," " Husain, help me," it is just like a man who wants to approach the king. He may go to the prime minister and ask him for help. He certainly does not consider the prime minister of the king as the final resort for removal of his difficulties.

His only aim is to approach the king through him since, by virtue of his position; he can easily approach the king. The Shi’as do not regard the descendants of the Prophet as partners in divine actions; they consider them as his pious servants.

Since they are the representatives of Almighty Allah, they submit the desires of the needy to Him. If the request is worthy, He accepts it. Otherwise, its recompense is given in the hereafter. One point should not be allowed to remain unexplained: the Shi’as regard the position of the faultless Imams as higher than that of the other martyrs of Islam.

Hafiz: This statement requires an explanation. What is the difference between your Imams and all other Imams except that they are related to the Prophet?

Well-Wisher: If you look at the position of the Imamate, you will see a clear contrast between the conception of the Imamate held by Shi’as and Sunnis.

Fourth Session, Sunday night, 2nd Rajab 1345 A.H.

Well-Wisher: You good people are aware that the word "Imam" has many meanings. Literally it means "leader." Imam al-Jama'at means "one who leads the congregational prayers." He may also be the leader of men in political or spiritual matters. Imam al-Jum'a means "one who leads the Jum'a prayers." Therefore, the Sunnis, followers of the four schools of law, call their leaders "Imams," such as Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, and Imam Hanbal.

These theologians and jurists are their leaders in religious matters, and they have set forth religious laws based on their research or on their own speculation regarding the lawfulness of actions.

Accordingly, when we study the books of jurisprudence of the four Imams, we find many differences among them concerning the fundamentals of faith and the articles of the practice of the faith.

Similarly, all sects have such leaders, and among the Shi’as the ulama’ and jurists hold the same position. With the disappearance of our living Imam of the Age, they issue legal pronouncements based on their knowledge of the Holy Qur'an, the authentic sayings of the Prophet, and the apostolic Imams.

But we do not call them Imams because the Imamate belongs exclusively to the twelve successors, descendants of the Prophet. There is another difference. The Sunnis later closed the door of ijtihad (striving to interpret the law).

From the fifth century A.H. when, by order of the king, the opinions formulated by the ulama’ and jurists were collected, the so-called Imamate was confined to the four Imams, and the four schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) were established. People were forced to follow one of them, as is the practice at the present time. It is not known on what grounds following one Imam is preferable. What characteristics does the Imam of the Hanafis possess which the Imam of Malikis does not?

What characteristics does the Imam of the Shafi'is possess which the Imam of Hanbalis does not? And if the Islamic world is forced to confine itself to following one of the four schools, then the progress of the Muslim community is totally blocked, even though Islam teaches us that we should move forward with the times. To do this, we need the guidance of the ulama’.

There are many matters in which we should not follow the verdict of a deceased mujtahid (from jihad, to strive, meaning in this case, one who strives to interpret and to formulate religious practice and law, as ijtihad refers to the process of striving) but should turn to the living mujtahid for guidance.

Many mujtahids were born later among you who were of higher rank in learning than those four "Imams." I do not know why preference is given to the latter so that none but they may be followed and the right of others ignored. In Shi’as jurisprudence, mujtahids in every age until the appearance of the Holy Imam of our time have the right to practice. In regard to new problems, we cannot follow the verdict of a deceased mujtahid.

It is strange that you call the Shi’as innovators and worshippers of the dead. They follow the injunctions of the twelve Imams, the descendants of the Prophet. However, it is not known on what grounds you attempt to force Muslims to follow the Ash'aris or Mu'tazalis regarding the fundamentals (usul) and one of the four Imams in the articles of the practice (furu') of the faith.

Those who do not follow them are called Rafizis. Since Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari, Abu Hanifa, Maliki Ibn Anas Muhammad Ibn Idris Shafi'i, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal were like many other Muslim ulama’ and jurists, and since there is no injunction from the Holy Prophet to follow them, the restriction to follow them alone is an innovation. If I were to make this charge, what would you say in reply?

Hafiz: Since the four Imams possessed a high degree of devotion to Allah, piety, uprightness, and integrity, along with a vast knowledge of jurisprudence, it has become necessary for us to follow them.

Well-Wisher: We are not compelled by logic to confine ourselves to follow them alone. Many others of your ulama’ possessed these same qualities. The restriction to follow them alone is an insult to other ulama’ of equal merit. We cannot be forced to follow any one person or persons without an authoritative instruction from the Holy Prophet. There is no such authorization by the Prophet about your four Imams. So how can you restrict religion to these four schools of law?

Only a few nights ago you called the Shi’as sect "political," and said that since it did not exist during the Prophet's time - that it came into being during Uthman's caliphate - it was unlawful to follow it. The night before last we proved that Shi’as'ism was founded in the time of the Prophet on his own instructions. The chief of the Shi’as, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, was brought up and trained by the Prophet from early childhood and received his religious knowledge from him.

According to the records in your own authentic books, the Holy Prophet called him the Gate of Knowledge. He explicitly said: "Obedience to ‘Ali is obedience to me, and disobedience to ‘Ali is disobedience to me." In a gathering of 70,000 people, he appointed him Amir and caliph and ordered all Muslims, including ‘Umar and Abu Bakr, to pay allegiance to him.

But it is not known how your four schools of law came to be established, nor which of the four Imams saw neither the Prophet nor whether any authorization has been reported from the Prophet about them so as to explain why Muslims should be forced to follow them.

Without any compelling reason you follow your elders and offer nothing to authorize their Imamate except that they were great mujtahids, men of learning and piety. But, if these qualities are present to the highest degree in the progeny of the Prophet, then isn't it obligatory for us to follow them?

Are these schools of law, which have no link with the Prophet, innovations, or is that sect founded by the Prophet and led by his descendant an innovation? In the same way, there are the other eleven Imams about whom there are separate hadith showing that they are the equals of the Holy Qur'an.

In the Hadith al-Thaqalain it is clearly stated that "Whoever is attached to these two is rescued, and whosoever stays away from them is lost." In the Hadith al-Safina the Prophet said: "Whosoever keeps aloof from them is drowned and lost." Ibn Hajar in Sawa'iq (Bab al-Wasiyyatu'n-Nabi, page 135), quotes a hadith from the Prophet saying that: "The Qur'an and my progeny are my Trusts; if you keep yourselves attached to these two, never shall you go astray."

In support of this, Ibn Hajar quotes another hadith from the Prophet about the Holy Qur'an and his purified progeny: "Do not go beyond the bounds of the Qur'an and my progeny; do not neglect them. Otherwise, you will be destroyed. And do not teach my descendants since they know more than you do."

After this, Ibn Hajar comments that the above hadith proves that the descendants of the Prophet are superior to all others in knowledge and in discharging religious responsibilities.

It is, however, astonishing that, knowing that the progeny of the Prophet are superior to all others, the Sunnis follow Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari in the fundamentals of Islam and the four Imams in the articles of practice of the faith.

To follow such a course is due to fanaticism and arrogance. And even if we suppose what you say is true, that your four Imams are worthy of your allegiance because they were learned and pious, then why has each of them accused the other of infidelity?

Hafiz: You are very unkind. You say whatever comes to mind. You malign our Imams. This statement is a lie. If anything has been said against them, it is from the Shi’as ulama’. From our side nothing has been said against them. We have shown them respect.

Well-Wisher: You apparently haven't read your ulama’s books. Your own distinguished ulama’ have written books concerning their rejection. Even the four Imams have charged one another with violating divine laws.

Well-Wisher: Imam Shafi'i said: "There never was born a more damned person in Islam than Abu Hanifa." He also said: "I looked into the books of the companions of Abu Hanifa, and I found in them 130 pages containing matter in opposition to the Holy Qur'an and the Sunna."

Abu Hamid Ghazali in his book ‘Manqul fi Ilmi'l-Usul’ says: "In fact Abu Hanifa distorted the religious code, made its way doubtful, changed its arrangement, and intermingled the laws in such a way that the code prescribed by the Holy Prophet was totally disfigured. One who does so deliberately and considers it lawful is an infidel. One who does it knowing it to be unlawful is a sinner." According to this great scholar, Abu Hanifa was either an infidel or a sinner.

Many other books condemn Abu Hanifa. Jarullah Zamakhshari, the author of ‘Tafsir al-Kashshaf’ and one of your pious ulama’, writes in Rabiu'l-Abrar that Yusuf Ibn Asbat said: "Abu Hanifa rejected at least 400 hadith of the Prophet of Islam." Yusuf remarked that "Abu Hanifa said: 'Had the Prophet of Islam known me, he would have accepted many of my sayings.'"

Your own ulama’ have made similar criticisms of Abu Hanifa and the other three Imams. They can be found in Ghazali's ‘Mutahawwal’, Shafi'i's ‘Nuqtu'sh-Sharifa’, Zamakhshari's Rabiu'l-Abrar, and Ibn Jauzi's Muntazim. Imam Ghazali says in his Mutahawwal, "There are many mistakes in Abu Hanifa's work. He had no knowledge of etymology, grammar, or hadith." He also writes, "Since he had no knowledge of hadith, he relied on his own conjecture. The first being who acted on conjecture was Satan."

Ibn Jauzi writes in his Muntazim, "All the ulama’ are united in condemning Abu Hanifa. There are three categories of such critics: one group holds that his faith in the fundamentals of Islam was uncertain; another says that he lacked a strong memory and could not remember hadith; a third believes that he acted on conjecture and that his opinion was always at variance with the true hadith."

Your own ulama’ have criticized your Imams. The Shi’as ulama’ have not attributed anything to them except what your own ulama’ have said about them. On the other hand, there is no difference of opinion among the Shi’as ulama’ concerning the position of the twelve Imams.

We regard the Holy imams as the pupils of the same teaching. These Imams - all of them - acted according to divine laws which the last of the Prophets gave them. They never acted on conjecture or approved of innovations. What they said or did agreed with the sayings of the Prophet. Hence, there was no difference among them.

According to the definition given by the ulama’, the Imamate or Vicegerency of Allah, is one of the fundamentals of Islam. We believe that the Imamate is the Vicegerency of Allah for all of creation and the Khilafat al-Rasul (successors of the Prophet) for this world and the hereafter. Therefore, it is obligatory for all mankind to follow its tenants in all matters, temporal as well as spiritual.

Sheikh: It would be better if you did not declare categorically that the Imamate is included in the fundamentals of the faith, since the great ulama’ of Islam deny its inclusion. It is included in the articles of the practice of the faith. Your ulama’ have made it a part of the fundamentals.

Well-Wisher: My statement is not confined to the Imamate of the Shi’as. Even your great ulama’ have the same belief. One of them is your famous commentator Qazi Baidhawi, who says in his ‘Minhaju'l-Usul’ in connection with the discussion on narrations of hadith, "The Imamate is one of the fundamental principles of the faith, whose denial and opposition leads to infidelity and innovation."

Mulla ‘Ali Qushachi says in ‘Sharh al-Tajrid’, "The Imamate is the general vicegerent of Allah for both the affairs of this world and religion, like the caliphate of the Prophet." And Qazi Ruzbahan, one of the most fanatical of your ulama’, points to the same meaning. He says: "The Imamate, according to the followers of Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari, is the vicegerency of the Prophet of Islam for establishing the faith and safeguarding the interests of the Muslim community.

All the followers are bound in duty to comply with its dictates. Had the Imamate not been a part of the articles of the practice of the faith, the Prophet would not have said that 'Whosoever dies not knowing the Imam of his age, dies the death of ignorance.'"

This has been quoted by your distinguished ulama’, like Hamidi in ‘Jam'i-Bainu's-Sahihain’ and Mulla As'ad Taftazani in ‘Sharhe Aqa'id al-Nasafi’. Not knowing a single article of the practice of the faith would not be equivalent to ignorance stated by Baidhawi about not knowing the fundamentals, namely that ignorance of them is the cause of infidelity. Therefore, the Imamate is one of the fundamentals of the faith and is the completing stage of prophethood.

Hence, there is a vast difference between the concept of our Imamate, and those interpreted by you. You call your ‘ulama’ Imams, such as Imam Azam, and Imam Maliki. But, this is in the verbal sense. We also use the terms ‘Imam al-Juma'a, and ‘Imam al-Jama'at.

So there may be hundreds of Imams at one time, but in the technical sense in which we use the word "Imam," it means vicegerency of Allah. In this sense there is only one Imam at one time. The noble qualities of knowledge, magnanimity, valor, devotion to Allah, and piety have been perfected in him.

He surpasses humanity in all merits and occupies a state of infallibility. The world shall not be without such an Imam until the Day of Judgement. An Imam of such excellence is at the highest stage of spiritual attainment. Such an Imam is divinely commissioned and is appointed by the Holy Prophet. He surpasses all creation, including the prophets of the past.

Hafiz: On the one hand you condemn the Ghalis, and on the other hand, you yourself unduly praise the Imams and consider their position higher than that of the prophets. Common sense denies this, and the Holy Qur'an has also declared that the prophets are placed at the highest rank. Their position lies between Divine Self-Existence and the possible. Since your assertion is not supported by reason it cannot be accepted.

Well-Wisher: You have not yet asked on what grounds I have made this statement, and therefore you say it is without reason. The best proof for my statement is the Holy Qur'an, which, narrating the life of the Prophet Abraham, says that, after giving him three tests (of life, wealth, and sons), Allah intended to make his rank more exalted.

Since prophethood and the title of Khalil (Friend) did not apparently warrant a higher rank, the office of Imamate was the only office of a higher order to which even a Prophet of Allah could be entrusted.

The Holy Qur'an says:

"And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: 'Surely I will make you an Imam of men.' Abraham said: 'And of my offspring?' 'My covenant does not include the unjust,' He said." (2:124)

This verse, which indicates the position of the Imamate, also proves that the rank of the Imamate is superior to that of prophethood, since the position of the Prophet Abraham was raised from prophethood to the Imamate.

Hafiz: This means, according to your reasoning, that ‘Ali's position was superior to that of the last Prophet. This is what the Ghalis believed, as you have yourself admitted.

Well-Wisher: I do not mean what you have concluded. As you know, there is a great difference between general prophethood, and special prophethood. The rank of the Imamate is higher than the rank of general prophethood, but lower than special prophethood. The last Prophet is the highest stage of special prophethood.

Nawab: Excuse my interruption. Weren't all the prophets sent by Allah? They are undoubtedly of the same rank. The Holy Qur'an says:

"We do not differentiate between any of the prophets." (2:285)

Then why have you differentiated between them and divided prophethood into two categories, general and special?

Well-Wisher: Of course this verse is true in its proper context. That is, so far as achieving the aim of prophethood is concerned (which means teaching the people about existence of Allah, the Day of Judgement, and the training of their minds), all the prophets from Adam to the last of the prophets, are equal. But they differ in their qualities, achievements, and rank.

Is a prophet who was sent to guide 1,000 people equal to one who sent to guide 30,000 people or to one sent to guide all of humanity? Let's take an example. Is the teacher of first-grade students equal to a teacher of fourth-grade students? Are the teachers of higher classes equal to professors or university teachers?

All belong to the same administration and work under the same general program, their aim being to educate students. Yet, in view of the teacher's knowledge, they are not equal.

Each is different from the other according to his learning, ability, and achievement. From the point of view of the aim of prophethood, all the prophets of Allah are equal. However, because of differences in rank and knowledge, they are different. The Holy Qur'an says:

"We have made some of these Apostles to excel the others; among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by (many degrees of) rank." (2:253)

Your own Jarullah Zamakhshari says in his Tafsir al-Kushshaf that the above verse means that our Prophet was superior in rank to all others because of his special merits, the most important of which was that he was the last of the prophets.

Nawab: I am glad you solved this problem, but I have another question, though it is somewhat irrelevant. Please tell us briefly the main characteristics of special prophethood.

Well-Wisher: There are many qualities peculiar to special prophethood, and there are innumerable reasons proving how one prophet of all of them is the special prophet of Allah. In fact, that stage concludes the cycle of prophethood.

But these sessions are not arranged to prove the prophethood of Allah for Muslims. If we were to discuss this topic fully, we would drift from the topic of the Imamate. I will, however, briefly discuss the point.

The perfection of humanity lies in the perfection of the soul. Moral and spiritual perfection cannot be attained without purifying the soul. This purification is impossible unless one is guided by the power of wisdom. One is then able to rise higher and higher with the force of knowledge, and right action until he reaches the acme of humanity, as has been explained by ‘Ali. He said: "Man has been created with the power of speech, which is the essence of humanity.

If speech is adorned with knowledge and action, it resembles the existence of the ethereal realm, which is the origin of man's creation.When his speech reaches the place of temperance and is cleared of all physical matter; it becomes one with the ethereal realm. Then it leaves the animal world and reaches the highest stage of humanity."

Man's power of articulation renders him superior to all existence. But there is one condition attached to it: that he cleanse his soul of all impurities with knowledge and right action. These two factors in man are like two wings of a bird, which fly higher according to the strength of the wings. Similarly, man's level of human attainment rises according to his knowledge, and right action. To pass beyond the province of animality and to reach the sphere of humanity depends upon the perfection of the soul.

The man who combines in himself the faculties of knowledge and right action and reaches the third of three classes of men (the common people, the elite, and the most elite), arrives at the lowest stage of prophethood. When such a man becomes the object of Allah's special attention, he becomes a prophet. Of course prophethood also has different stages. A prophet may reach the highest point in the highest of these three classes.

This rank is the highest in the sphere of possibility, which the sages call the First Wisdom, and which is the First Effect or the First Consequence. There is no rank higher than this in the realm of existence. This position is occupied by the last of the prophets, who is second to none except the First Cause. When the Prophet was raised to this highest stage, prophethood was concluded.

The Imamate is a stage lower than the highest stage of prophethood, but it is a stage higher than all other ranks of prophethood. Since ‘Ali was raised to the stage higher than prophethood and was one in spirit with the Holy Prophet, he was endowed with the office of the Imamate and was thus superior to all previous prophets.

Hafiz: The last part of your remarks is perplexing. First, you say that ‘Ali was at the stage of prophethood; second, that he was one in spirit with the Prophet Muhammad; third, that he was superior to the other prophets. What are your arguments to prove the truth of your assertions?

Well-Wisher: That ‘Ali attained the rank of prophethood can be proven by the reference to the Hadith of ‘Manzila’ (Tradition Regarding Ranks), which has been unanimously narrated in more or less the same words. The last of the Holy prophets repeated a number of times and in different congregations: "Are you not content that you are to me what Aaron was to Moses, except that there shall be no prophet after me?" On other occasions he said to his followers: "‘Ali is to me as Aaron was to Moses."

Hafiz: The authenticity of this hadith has not been proven. Even if it were proven to be true, it would be a single narration and therefore unacceptable.

Well-Wisher: In providing information regarding the genuineness of this hadith, I will refer to your books. It is not a single narration. It has been authenticated by your own distinguished ulama’, like Suyuti, Hakim Nishapuri, and others, who have proved its reliability with unanimous sources. Some of them are the following:

(1) Abu Abdullah Bukhari in his Sahih, Volume III, the Book of Ghazawa, Qazwa Tabuk, p. 54, and in his book Bida'u'l-Khalq, p. 180;

(2) Muslim ibn Hajjaj in his Sahih, printed in Egypt, 1290 A.H., Volume II, under the heading, "The Merits of ‘Ali;" pages 236-7;

Many other eminent scholars of yours have narrated this grand ‘hadith’ with slight variations in words from many of the companions of the Holy Prophet, such as:

(1) ‘Umar ibn Khattab,

(2) Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas,

(3) Abdullah ibn Abbas,

(4) Abdullah ibn Mas'ud,

(5) Jabir ibn Abdullah Ansari,

(6) Abu Huraira,

(7) Abu Sa'id Khudri,

(8) Jabir ibn Sumra,

(9) Malik ibn Huwairi's,

(10) Bara'a ibn 'Azib,

(11) Zaid ibn Arqam,

(12) Abu Rafi',

(13) Abdullah ibn Ubai,

(14) Abu Suraiha,

(15) Hudhaifa ibn Assad,

(16) Anas ibn Malik,

(17) Abu Huraira Aslami,

(18) Abu Ayyub Ansari,

(19) Sa'id ibn Musayyab,

(20) Habib ibn Abi Thabit,

(21) Sharhbil ibn Sa'd,

(22) Umm Salma (wife of the Holy Prophet),

(23) Asma bint Umais (wife of Abu Bakr),

(24) Aqil ibn Abi Talib,

(25) Mu'awiya ibn Abu Sufyan, and a host of other companions. In short, all of them have related with slight variation of words that the Holy Prophet (S) said: "O ‘Ali, you are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there will be no prophet after me."

Are all these great ulama’ - and there are many I have not mentioned - not sufficient to prove that this hadith has been unanimously accepted as true? Would you now confirm that you were under a misunderstanding?

Since you assume an attitude of doubt in regard to the veracity of this hadith, you should consult Kifayatu't-Talib fi Manaqib al-’Ali Ibn Abu Talib, chapter 7, compiled by Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, who is one of the most prominent ulama’ of your sect. After quoting six hadith in praise of ‘Ali, this author comments (page 149) on this hadith as follows:

"This is a hadith whose authenticity has been acknowledged by all. It has been narrated by the most learned Imams and Huffaz (those who know the Qur'an by heart), like Abu Abdullah Bukhari in his Sahih, Muslim ibn Hujjaj in his Sahih, Abu Dawud in his Sunan, Abu Isa Tirmidhi in his Jami', Abu Abdu'r-Rahman in his Sunan, Ibn Maja Qazwini in his Sunan. All of them have unanimously acknowledged its authenticity. Hakim Nishapuri has said that this hadith has entered the stage of continuity."

I'm sure that I needn't present further evidence to show that this hadith is genuine.

Hafiz: I am not an irreligious man, so I will not reject your sensible reasoning, but I draw your attention to the statement of the great scholar and theologian, Abu'l-Hasan Amadi, who has rejected this hadith.

Well-Wisher: I wonder why a learned man like you, after hearing the views of your own distinguished ulama’, would give any credence to the statement of a wicked man, who did not even perform the ritual prayers.

Sheikh: Man is free to express his faith. If someone expresses his views, we should not slander him. It is unbecoming of you to malign him instead of giving a logical reply to his remarks.

Well-Wisher: You misunderstood me. I do not unjustly censure anyone. I was not alive during the time of Amadi. Your own ulama’ have reported that he was an irreligious man.

Well-Wisher: Ibn Hajar Asqalani has written in ‘Lisanu'l-Mizan’: "Saif Amadi Mutakallim ‘Ali Ibn Abi ‘Ali, the author, was banished from Damascus because of his irreligious views, and it is true that he did not offer prayers."

And Dhahabi, who is also one of your prominent ulama’, reported the same thing in his ‘Mizanu'l-I'tidal’. He said that Amadi was an innovator. If Amadi had not been a wicked and irreligious innovator, he would not have made slanderous remarks about all the companions of the Holy Prophet, including your own Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab (one of the reporters of the hadith).

It's not quite fair that you fault the Shi’as for not accepting hadith recorded in Siha. If a hadith comes from authentic sources, it is acceptable even if it is in the Siha. But if an established hadith, which is recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, and other authors of Siha, is rejected by Amadi, you find no fault with that.

If you wish to know the complete arguments regarding the authenticity and sources of this hadith from the recordings of your own ulama’, and if you are prepared to condemn people like Amadi, you may consult the volumes of ‘Abaqatu'l-Anwar’, written by the great scholar and commentator, Allama Mir Sayyid Hamid Husain Dihlawi.

In particular, you should consider the hadith of Manzila so that you may know how this great Shi’as Allama has collected sources from your own legal scholars and established the hadith's reliability.

Hafiz: You said that one of the reporters of this hadith was ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. I'd like to know more about that.

Well-Wisher: Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Ja'afaru'l-Mutiri and Abu'l-Laith Nasr Ibn Muhammad Samarqandi Hanafi, in their books, ‘Majalis’, Muhammad Ibn Abdu'r-Rahman Dhahabi in his ‘Riadhu'n-Nazara’, Mulla ‘Ali Muttaqi in his ‘Kanzu'l-Ummal’, and others have reported from Ibn Abbas as saying that one day ‘Umar Ibn Khattab said: "Leave the name of ‘Ali (that is, do not speak so much ill of ‘Ali) because I have heard the Holy Prophet saying that ‘Ali had three qualities. If I had any one of these qualities, I would have treasured it more than anything on which the sun shines.

Once I, Abu Bakr, Abu Ubaida, Jarra and some other companions were present, and the Holy Prophet was resting against ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib. He patted ‘Ali's shoulders and said, ‘Ali! So far as faith is concerned, you are the first of all the believers and so far as Islam is concerned, you have taken the lead.' Then he said, ‘Ali! You are to me as Aaron was to Moses. And he is a liar who thinks he is my friend if he is your enemy.'"

Is it permissible in your belief to reject the statement of Caliph ‘Umar? If it is not permissible, why do you pay attention to the absurd statements of a man like Amadi?

I have yet to reply to one of your remarks. You said that this hadith is a single narration, and hence it is not acceptable. If we say such a thing according to the pattern of the men which we have in view, we would be justified.

But it surprises me to hear such a thing from you because in your sect even a single narration is sufficient to establish the truth of a matter. If someone refuses to admit the authenticity of a single narration, he is, according to your ulama’, an unbeliever.

Maliku'l-Ulama’ Shahabu'd-Din Daulatabadi said in ‘Hidayatu's-Sa'da'’: "If someone refuses to accept a lone report or conjecture and says that it is not acceptable, he is an infidel. If he says that this single narration is not correct, and this conjecture is not proved, he is a sinner, not an infidel."

Hafiz: We have drifted from our main topic. Please let us know how you can prove through this hadith of Manzila that ‘Ali occupied the rank of a prophet.

Well-Wisher: This hadith proves that ‘Ali (a.s.) possessed three characteristics:

(1) The rank of a prophet;

(2) The rank of successor to the Holy Prophet; and

(3) his superior position among all the companions of the Holy Prophet.

Like the Holy Prophet, ‘Ali's followers likened him to Aaron, who was a prophet, was invested with the caliphate of Moses, and was superior to all the Bani Isra'il.

Nawab: Was Aaron (a.s.) a prophet?

Well-Wisher: Yes.

Nawab: Can you cite a verse from the Holy Qur'an in support of this point?

Well-Wisher: Allah mentioned his prophethood in many verses. He says:

"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Noah, and to the prophets after him. We revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, and Jacob and the tribes, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon; and We gave to David Psalms." (4:163)

And again He says:

"And mention Moses in the Book; surely he was one purified, and he was an apostle, a prophet. And We called to him from the blessed side of the mountain, and We made him draw nigh, holding communion (with us). And We gave to him out of Our Mercy his brother, Aaron, a prophet." (19:51-53)

Hafiz: So, according to your reasoning, Muhammad (S) and ‘Ali (a.s.) were both prophets.

Well-Wisher: I didn't express it the way you have. Of course, you yourself know that there is a great difference of opinion regarding how many prophets there have been. Some claim that there have been 120,000, or, even more.

But, all of them in their respective periods were divided into groups, and were subordinate to a major prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed containing a new religious law. Five of them were major prophets: Noah (a.s.), Abraham (a.s.), Moses (a.s.), Jesus (a.s.), and the last of the prophets, Muhammad (S), whose rank is the highest.

Aaron (a.s.) was one of those prophets who was not permanent, or, independent. He was subordinate to the ‘shari'a’ (religious code) of his brother, Moses. ‘Ali (a.s.) reached the rank of prophethood but was not elevated to the rank of prophet per se since he was subordinate to the ‘shari'a’ of Muhammad.

In this ‘hadith’ of ‘Manzila’, the purpose of the prophet was to tell people that, just as Aaron (a.s.) had reached the rank of prophethood but was subordinate to Moses, ‘Ali (a.s.) reached the rank of prophethood. The Imamate was conferred upon him, but he was subordinate to Muhammad (S).

In his commentary on the Nahju'l-Balagha, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says in connection with this hadith that by mentioning the rank of Aaron in comparison to Moses, the Prophet indicated that ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib occupied that rank. Similarly, Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i, in his ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, page 19, after explaining the rank and position of Aaron, says:

"The gist of the matter is that the position of Aaron in relation to Moses was that Aaron was his brother, his representative, partner in prophethood, and his successor or vicegerent when Moses was on a journey.

The Prophet of Allah has also in this hadith indicated that ‘Ali held the same position as Aaron held, except prophethood, which has been excluded by his saying: 'There will be no prophet after me.'"

Therefore, it is proven that ‘Ali was the Prophet's brother, wazir (assistant), representative, and his successor, as declared by the Prophet in his journey to Tabuk. This hadith is unanimously accepted as true. The same view has been expressed by Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in his ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’, page 29, and by many others of your prominent ulama’.

Hafiz: I think your claim that if our Prophet had not been the seal of the prophets, ‘Ali would have held that office, is peculiar to you alone. No one else has said this.

Well-Wisher: This claim is not confined to me and the Shi’as ulama’. Your own ulama’ have held the same view. One of your great ulama’ is Mulla ‘Ali Ibn Sultan Muhammad Harawi Qari. In his ‘Mirqat al-Sharh bar Mishkat’, he says, commenting on the hadith of Manzila, "There is an indication in this hadith that if there were any prophet of Allah after the last of the prophets, it would have been ‘Ali." Another of your prominent ulama’ who has interpreted this hadith the same way is the well known scholar, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti.

He writes towards the end of his Baghiatu'l-Wu'az Fi Tabaqatu'l-Huffaz, giving the chain of chroniclers up to Jabir Abdullah Ansari, that the Holy Prophet told the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali "Had there been any prophet of Allah after me, it would have been you!"

In addition, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Faqih Shafi'i says in the second of the six Mawadda in his book ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, quoting a narration from Anas Ibn Malik, that the Prophet said: "Verily, Allah made me superior to all the prophets, chose me for excellence, and made for me a successor, my cousin, ‘Ali.

Through him, He strengthened my shoulders, just as the shoulders of Moses were strengthened by Aaron. He, (‘Ali) is my vicegerent and assistant. If there were any prophet after me, it would have been ‘Ali, but there will be no prophet after me."

So you see that I am not alone in claiming the rank of prophethood for ‘Ali. The Prophet and your own ulama’ have acknowledged it. Since he possessed the rank of Aaron, and since the era of prophethood had ended, ‘Ali was the fittest person for the caliphate (vicegerency). One indication of ‘Ali's exalted rank was that the Prophet permitted the door of ‘Ali's house to remain open toward the mosque.

These comments caused excitement and confusion among the Sunnis. Well-Wisher asked why it was so.

Nawab: Last Friday we went to the mosque to offer prayers. Hafiz Sahib told us about the superiority of Caliph Abu Bakr. He said that he was permitted to keep the door of his house opened towards the mosque. We are surprised to hear you say that this permission was peculiar to ‘Ali. Please clarify this point.

Well-Wisher: (Turning to Hafiz Sahib) Have you made this statement?

Hafiz: Yes. It is recorded in our authentic hadith, as reported by the pious and just companion of the Holy Prophet, Abu Huraira. The Prophet ordered "That all doors opening towards the mosque be closed except the door of Abu Bakr's house, for Abu Bakr is from me and I am from Abu Bakr."

Well-Wisher: Surely you know that because of the merit of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, the Bani Umayya made continued efforts through secret means and particularly through the servile flatterers of Mu'awiya, like Abu Huraira and Mughira, to fabricate such hadith.

Moreover, the followers of Abu Bakr, because of their support of him, strengthened these fabricated hadith. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, and again in Volume 3, page 17, discusses in detail that among the many fabricated hadith is the one which tells about the closing of the doors of all the houses towards the mosque, except that of Abu Bakr.

Contrary to this forged hadith, there are many authentic hadith, which are recorded not only in authentic Shi’as books, but also in reliable books of your own ulama’, like Sahih.

Nawab: Since it is a controversial issue, with Hafiz Sahib saying it is peculiar to Abu Bakr, and with you saying it is peculiar to ‘Ali, we would appreciate it if you would quote from our books so that we may compare your references with those of Hafiz Sahib.

Well-Wisher: The following sources have narrated that the Prophet ordered that all the doors of the houses opening toward the mosque be closed except the door of ‘Ali's house: Ahmad ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’, Volume I, page 175, Volume II, page 26 and Volume IV, page 369; Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in ‘Sunan’ and in ‘Khasa'isi'l-Alawi’, pages 13-14; Hakim Nishapuri in ‘Mustadrak’, Volume III, pages 117-125 and Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkira’, pages 24-25 have testified to the reliability of this ‘hadith’ on the basis of chains of narrators of Tirmidhi and Ahmad.

And in ‘La'aliu'l-Masnu'a’, Volume I, page 181, Khatib Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’, Hamwaini in ‘Fara'id’, Ibn Maghazili in ‘Manaqib’, Munawi Misri in ‘Kunuzu'd-Daqa'iq’, Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, page 87, devoting the whole of Chapter 17 to this very issue, Shahabu'd-Din Qastalani in ‘Irshad al-Bari’, Volume VI, page 81, Halabi in ‘Siratu'l-Halabiyya’, Volume III, page 374 and Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i in ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, and many others, particularly from among the prominent companions of the Holy Prophet (S), have narrated the same thing.

For instance, Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, Zaid Ibn Arqam, and Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari have confirmed the reliability of this hadith. Some of your prominent ulama’, in order to save the people from being misled by the Bani Umayya, have emphasized the truth of this hadith. Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his book ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’, chapter 50, has dealt with this hadith under a special heading.

Quoting from authentic sources, he says that since a number of doors of the companions of the Prophet opened towards the mosque, and since the Prophet had forbidden everyone to enter the mosque in the state of janaba or haiz (pollution making the ritual bath essential), he ordered that all doors of the houses be closed excepting the door of Hazrat ‘Ali's house.

He said, "Close all the doors; but let the door of ‘Ali's house remain open." Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Shafi'i says that it is peculiar to ‘Ali that he was permitted to enter and stay in the mosque in the state of janaba.

He goes on to say: "In short, the Holy Prophet's conferring this privilege exclusively on ‘Ali was a great honor. It shows that the Prophet knew that ‘Ali, Fatima, and their descendants were entirely free from impurity, as is clearly shown by the 'verse of purity' in the Holy Qur'an."

These remarks of a Shafi'i scholar may be compared to the hadith mentioned by Hafiz Sahib. Leaving aside all the authentic sources we have quoted, if you have any proof of Abu Bakr's purity, please present it.

The fact is that even Bukhari and Muslim in their collections of traditions have pointed out this fact that a polluted person cannot stay in the mosque. The Prophet said, "It is not permitted for anyone who is polluted to stay in the mosque except for me and ‘Ali."

Perhaps I may be allowed here to quote a hadith from the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, which has been reported by Hakim in Mustadrak, page 125, by Sulayman Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda chapter 56, page 210, and by others, like Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Khatib Khawarizmi, Ibn Hajar, Suyuti, and Ibn Athir Jazri.

He said: "Verily, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib possessed three outstanding merits. If I possessed any one of them, it would have been better for me than red-haired animals (camels): (1) The Prophet gave his daughter in marriage to him; (2) The Prophet ordered that all the doors of the houses opening towards the mosque be closed except the door of ‘Ali's house; (3) The Prophet bestowed upon him the flag (of Islam) on the day of the Battle of Khaibar."

From these remarks, it is now clear that ‘Ali was similar to the Holy Prophet in all respects, just as Aaron was to Moses.

So when Moses found Aaron fittest for this office, he asked Allah to make him his associate in his mission, so that he might be his wazir (minister or assistant). Similarly, when the Holy Prophet saw that there was no one among all of his followers as deserving as ‘Ali, he asked Allah Almighty to make ‘Ali his minister and associate.

Nawab: Are there further hadith regarding this issue?

Well-Wisher: Yes, many exist concerning this matter in your own books.

Nawab: I am prepared to listen to them provided you, too, (pointing toward the ulama’ of the other side) would like to listen.

Hafiz: No harm. Listening to hadith is as devotional a deed as the narration thereof.

Well-Wisher: Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i in his ‘Manaqib’, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in ‘Durr al-Mansur’, the renowned theologian, Ahmad Tha'labi, in ‘Kashfu'l-Bayan’, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkiratu'l-Khawasu'l-Umma’, in connection with the verse of ‘Wilaya’ quotes from Abu Dharr Ghifari and Asma Bint Umais (wife of Abu Bakr) that they said that one day they offered their noon prayers in the mosque when the Prophet was present. A beggar began asking for alms. No one gave him anything. ‘Ali was bowing (in the ritual bow). When he pointed to his finger, the beggar removed the ring from his finger.

The Holy Prophet saw what happened and raising his head towards the sky, said "O Allah, my brother Moses prayed to you: 'O my Lord, expand for me my breast and make easy for me my task. Appoint for me a helper from my family, Aaron, my brother.'"

The verse was revealed telling Moses that his prayer was granted. Allah appointed for him a helper and strengthened his hands and gave them such power and authority that no one could overpower them.

"...and Moses said to his brother Aaron: 'Take my place among my people, and act well and do not follow the way of the mischief-makers.'" (7:142)

Hafiz: You said that Aaron was an associate of Moses in prophethood. How was he then made his caliph? An associate in prophethood holds a position superior to that of a caliph or successor. If the partner is a prophet and he is made the caliph, this is a lowering of his rank.

Well-Wisher: The principal prophethood belonged to Moses, and Aaron's prophethood was subordinate to that of Moses. But regarding preaching he was his associate, as is evident from Moses' requests, recorded in the Holy Qur'an:

Similarly, ‘Ali was one who, besides possessing the rank of a prophet, was an associate of the Prophet in all stages, and special qualities.

Hafiz: I am astonished to hear you exaggerating the position of ‘Ali. We are all amazed. You just said that ‘Ali possessed all the characteristics of the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: These statements are not exaggerations. They are facts. The Prophet's successor should, according to common sense, be the model of the Prophet. Even your own great ulama’ have expressed similar beliefs. Imam Tha'labi, in his commentary, confirmed this point.

And the great Sunni scholar, Alim Fazil Sayyid Ahmad Shahabu'd-Din, in his ‘Tauzihu'd-Dala'il’, has referred to this point as follows: "It is not a secret that the Commander of the Faithful resembled the Prophet of Allah in most good qualities, selfless actions, habits, prayers to Allah, and all other exalted ways of life.

This has been proved by authentic reports and reliable sources and does not require any proof or argument. Some ulama’ have counted some of those qualities which ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet possessed equally."

Among the qualities shared by both is their lineal descent. And arguing from the verse of purity, we see that ‘Ali is similar to the Holy Prophet in purity. (This verse was revealed in reference to five people: Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.) ‘Ali, like the Prophet, was the Vicegerent of Allah. According to both sects, the following verse was revealed in reference to ‘Ali:

"Only Allah is your Friend and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow." (5:55)

‘Ali was similar to the Holy Prophet in the performance of the duties of prophethood and preaching, as the affair of the Sura of Immunity (Bara'a) shows. The Prophet gave certain verses of the Sura to Abu Bakr and instructed him to recite them to the people during the Hajj.

The angel Gabriel soon appeared before the Prophet and told him that it was Allah's will that the matter of the Holy Qur'an should be conveyed either by the Prophet himself, or by one who was of him. ‘Ali was identical with the Prophet in his role as Vicegerent of Allah.

The Prophet himself said: "I have been commanded by Allah to announce this to you." Then he grasped the hand of ‘Ali and said, "Know you all, of whomsoever I am the Maula (Master), ‘Ali is also his Maula (Master)." Moreover, the self of ‘Ali is declared to be the self of the Prophet. The 'Verse of Imprecation' (Mubahala) says:

"But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: 'Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our selves and your selves; then let us be earnest in prayer and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.'" (3:61)

To return to the time in the mosque when ‘Ali gave the beggar his ring and the Prophet invoked Allah, asking Him to make ‘Ali his associate in his prophethood. Then the Holy Prophet prayed: "O Allah! I am Muhammad, Your chosen one and Your Prophet. Expand for me my breast. And make easy for me my task and appoint for me a helper from my family, ‘Ali. Strengthen my back through him."

Abu Dharr related, "By Allah! The prayer of the Prophet had not ended when the angel Gabriel appeared and revealed this verse to him:

'Only Allah is your Friend and His Apostle and those who believe, those who maintain prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.'" (5:55)

The Prophet's prayer was granted, and ‘Ali was appointed his vizier. Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i, in Matalibu's-Su'ul, page 19, has dealt with this issue in detail. Furthermore, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in ‘Manaqatu'l-Mutaharin’, Sheikh ‘Ali Ja'fari in Kanzu'l-Barahin, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’, Sayyid Shahabu'd-din in Tauzihu'd-Dala'il, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in ‘Durr al-Mansur’, and other prominent scholars of your sect have narrated this in their works. Some of them have narrated from Asma Bint Umais (the wife of Abu Bakr) and some from other companions.

The following was narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: "The Prophet took me and ‘Ali by the hand. He offered four rak'ats of prayer, and raising his hands toward the sky, said, 'O Allah! Moses, son of Imran, begged of you to appoint for him a helper and to make easy for him his task. I am Muhammad. I beg of you to expand for me my breast and make easy for me my task. Keep my tongue fluent so that the people may understand my speech. Appoint for me a helper from my family, ‘Ali. Strengthen my back through him, and associate him with me in my affair.'

I heard a voice saying, 'O Ahmad! I have granted your request.' Then the Prophet took ‘Ali by the hand and said, 'Raise your hands towards the sky and pray to Allah so that He may bestow something upon you.' Then ‘Ali raised his hands and said, 'O Allah, promise me on Your part that you will hold me in Your affection.' Immediately the angel Gabriel appeared and brought this verse of the chapter 'Mary':

'Surely (as for) those who believe and do good deeds upon them will Allah bestow love.' (19:96)

When the companions of the Prophet were surprised at this, the Prophet said, 'Why are you astonished? The Holy Qur'an has four parts: One-fourth concerns us (the Ahlul Bayt); one-fourth concerns lawful matters; one-fourth is for unlawful matters; and one-fourth concerns commandments and ordinances. I swear by Allah that there are many verses in the Holy Qur'an which have been revealed in praise of ‘Ali.'"

Sheikh: Even if this hadith is taken to be authentic, it does not indicate a special rank for ‘Ali. The same hadith has been narrated concerning Caliph Abu Bakr and Caliph ‘Umar. Qaz'a Ibn Suwaid has narrated from Ibn Abi Malika who quotes Ibn Abbas as saying that the Holy Prophet said, "Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are to me as Aaron was to Moses."

Well-Wisher: You should take into account the character of some of your narrators. Sometimes you argue from the reports of Amadi and sometimes from those of the notorious liar and forger, Qaz'a Ibn Suwaid, even though your own leading ulama’ have discredited him. Allama Dhahabi, in his ‘Mizanu'l-I'tidal’, in the description of the affairs of Qaz'a Ibn Suwaid, and Ammar Ibn Harun, rejects this hadith and says simply, "It is a lie."

When your own ulama’ reject Qaz'a, the hadith that he narrates should be rejected. Compare this hadith of Qaz'a with the chain of hadith that I have quoted from the most prominent ulama’ of your sect and decide yourself which of the hadith you accept.

Fifth Session, Tuesday night, 27th Rajab 1345 A.H.

Hafiz: From your eloquent talk last night, I conclude that you wanted to prove that ‘Ali was the immediate successor of the Prophet, though in fact this hadith has only a specific significance. It was narrated during the journey of Tabuk. There is no proof that it has general significance.

Well-Wisher: In this hadith the word "Manzila" (Rank) is used in the general sense. The word showing exception clearly proves that the reference is of general significance. The Prophet named ‘Ali along with the word "prophet" and described his ‘Manzila’ using the phrase: “except that there shall be no prophet after me.”

Most eminent ulama’ and authors have quoted the hadith from the Prophet, who is reported to have said to ‘Ali. "Are you not content that you are to me as Aaron was to Moses except that there shall be no prophet after me?"

During his absence of forty days, Moses did not leave matters to the discretion of his followers. He appointed Aaron, the best man among the Isra'ilis, to act as his Caliph and successor. Similarly the last prophet, whose religion is most perfect, had even greater reason to protect his people from the chaos of their free will. He preserved the code of religion so that it might not pass into the hands of the ignorant, those who would change it according to their whims.

The ignorant people would depend on their own conjecture and create divisions in the matter of law. So, in this sacred hadith the Prophet says: "‘Ali is to me as Aaron was to Moses," confirming that ‘Ali held the same levels of merit and authority as Aaron did. ‘Ali was superior to the whole umma (community), and therefore the Prophet appointed him his helper and his successor.

Hafiz: What you have said about this hadith is above question. But if you just consider the matter carefully, you will admit that this hadith has no general significance. Its significance is confined to the Battle of Tabuk when the Prophet appointed ‘Ali his Caliph for a fixed time.

Well-Wisher: You might have been justified in your remark if this hadith had been narrated at Tabuk only. But the Prophet repeated the same hadith on different occasions. It was narrated when brotherhood among different individuals among the muhajirs (refugees) was established in Mecca.

It was also narrated in Medina when brotherhood was established between the Muhajirin and the Ansar. On each occasion the Prophet selected ‘Ali as his brother, saying, "You are to me as Aaron was to Moses except that there shall be no prophet after me."

Hafiz: So far as I have observed, the hadith of ‘Manzila’ was narrated only at the Battle of Tabuk. The Prophet left ‘Ali in his place, which caused ‘Ali to worry. The Prophet consoled him with these words. I think you have been misled.

Well-Wisher: No, I am not mistaken. Your own authentic books have narrated it. Among them are Mas'udi (a reliable reporter according to both sects) who writes in his ‘Muruju'dh-Dhahab’, Volume II, page 49, Halabi in ‘Siratu'l-Halabiyya’, Volume II, pages 26 and 120, Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in ‘Khasa'isu'l-Alawiyya’, page 19, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his ‘Tadhkira’, pages 13-14, Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, chapter 9 and 17, and several others have narrated this ‘hadith’.

They all say that, apart from the two occasions of establishing brotherhood, it has been narrated on many other occasions as well. Therefore, this hadith is not to be construed in a restricted sense or for a particular occasion only. Its general significance is an established fact. lt was through this hadith that the Holy Prophet declared on appropriate occasions ‘Ali's succession after him. One of those occasions was the Battle of Tabuk.

Hafiz: How is it possible that the companions of the Prophet heard this hadith in its general sense, knowing that it meant the succession of ‘Ali was willed by the Prophet and yet, after the death of the Prophet, they became hostile and accepted another man as caliph?

Well-Wisher: I have many references in support of my answer to your question, but the best response for this occasion is to consider the trials of Aaron in a very similar situation. The Holy Qur'an states that when Moses appointed Aaron his successor, he gathered round him the Bani Isra'il (according to some reports, 70,000 people). Moses emphasized that in his absence they should obey Aaron, his Caliph and successor. Moses then went up the mountain to be alone with Allah. Before a month passed, Samiri incited dissension among the Isra'ilis.

He fashioned a golden calf and the Bani Isra'il, having left Aaron, gathered round the treacherous Samiri in large numbers. It had been only a short time before this that the same Bani Isra'il had heard Moses say that during his absence Aaron was to be his Caliph and that they should obey him.

Nevertheless, 70,000 people followed Samiri. The Prophet Aaron loudly protested this action and forbade them from indulging in such sinful acts, but no one listened to him. The verse of Sura A'raf states that when Moses came back, Aaron said to him:

"Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me..." (7:150)

Similarly, after the death of the Prophet, some people who had heard him say that ‘Ali was his successor, turned against ‘Ali. Imam Ghazali referred to this fact in the beginning of his fourth treatise in ‘Sirru'l-'Alamin’. He states that some people returned to the state of their former ignorance. In this respect, there is great similarity between the situation of Aaron and that of ‘Ali.

Like many of your own great scholars and historians, Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba Bahili Dinawari, the well-known Qazi of Dinawar, in his ‘Al-Imama Wa Siyasa’, Volume I, page 14, narrates in detail the events of Saqifa. He says that they threatened to burn down ‘Ali's house and they forcibly took him to the mosque and threatened to kill him unless he swore allegiance to them.

‘Ali went to the sacred grave of the Prophet and repeated the same words of the Holy Qur'an which Aaron spoke to Moses:

"He (Aaron) said: Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me..." (7:150)

Nawab: When the succession of ‘Ali had been established, why did the Prophet use words which only implied that sense? Why didn't he clearly announce that ‘Ali was his successor, so that no objection could have been raised after him?

Well-Wisher: I told you that the Prophet expressed the truth in both ways. This is evident from your own books, which have recorded numerous hadith in this regard. Literary people know that allusion is more impressive than a mere statement, particularly when the allusion is so deep-rooted that it contains in it a world of meaning.

Nawab: You say that there are many clear hadith recorded by your ulama’ concerning the succession of ‘Ali. Will you please tell us more about this? We are told that there is no hadith which proves ‘Ali's succession.

Well-Wisher: There are many hadith concerning the caliphate in your own authentic books.

Of all the hadith concerning the vicegerency of ‘Ali, the hadith of Invitation is the most important. On the day the Prophet proclaimed his prophethood, he also proclaimed that ‘Ali was his successor. The ulama’ of your sect, including Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad Khawarizmi, Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali and a host of others have reported that when verse 214 of the Chapter Shu'ara:

"And warn your nearest relations," (26:214)

was revealed, the Prophet invited forty of the Quraish, to Abu Talib's house.

He put before them a leg of goat, some bread, and a cup of milk. They laughed and said: "O Muhammad! you have not served enough food for even one man." The Holy Prophet said: "Begin eating in the name of Allah."

When they had eaten and were fully satisfied, they said to each other: "Muhammad has bewitched you with this food." The Prophet stood up among them and said: "O descendants of Abdu'l-Muttalib! Allah Almighty has sent me as a messenger to the whole of creation in general and to you in particular.

I invite you to make two statements which are light and easy for the tongue, but on the scale of action they are heavy. If you make the two statements, you will be masters of the lands of the Arabs and the non-Arabs. Through them you will go to Paradise and will obtain immunity from Hell.

These two expressions are: first, to bear witness to Allah's Oneness, and second, to bear witness to my prophethood. The one who first of all acknowledges my call and helps me in my mission is my brother, my helper, my heir, and my successor after me."

The Prophet repeated the last sentence three times, and each time none except ‘Ali responded to him, saying, "I will aid and help you, O Prophet of Allah!" So the Prophet declared: "This ‘Ali is my brother, and he is my successor and Caliph among you."

Besides the Shi’as and Sunni ulama’ of Islam, many impartial historians of other nations have given the details of this feast. They had no religious bias, being neither Shi’as nor Sunnis. One of these writers is the nineteenth-century British historian and philosopher, Thomas Carlyle. In his "Heroes and Hero-worship" he described the details of the feast at Abu Talib's house. After the Prophet's statements, ‘Ali stood and proclaimed his faith in the Prophet. Therefore, the caliphate was bestowed on him.

Other European writers have confirmed this fact, including George Sale of England and Hashim, a Christian of Syria, in his Maqalatu'l-Islam, and Mr. John Davenport in his Muhammad and the Qur'an. All agree that the Prophet, immediately after the proclamation of his prophethood, called ‘Ali his brother, helper, successor, and Caliph. Moreover, several hadith confirm that the Prophet emphasized this fact on many other occasions.

(1) Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in ‘Mawaddati'l-Qurba’ towards the end of the fourth ‘Mawadda’, have recorded that the Holy Prophet said, "O ‘Ali! You shall discharge responsibilities on my behalf, and you are my Vicegerent over my following."

(2) Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’, Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i in ‘Manaqib’ and Tha'labi in his ‘Tafsir’ (commentary) have reported that the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali: "O ‘Ali! You are my brother, successor, vicegerent, and the payer of my debt."

(4) Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, at the beginning of the sixth ‘Mawadda’, narrates from the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, that when the Prophet (S) established the relationship of brotherhood among the companions, he said: "This ‘Ali is my brother in this world and in the Hereafter; he is my successor from among my kin and my Vicegerent among my umma; he is the heir of my knowledge and the payer of my debt; whatever he owes to me, I owe to him. His profit is my profit, and his loss is my loss; one who is his friend is my friend; one who is his enemy is my enemy."

(5) In the same Mawadda’, he quotes a hadith from Anas ibn Malik, which I have mentioned earlier. Toward its end he says that the Holy Prophet said, "He (‘Ali) is my Vicegerent and helper."

(6) Muhammad Ibn Ganji Shafi'i quotes a hadith from Abu Dharr Ghifari in his book, Kifayatu't-Talib, that the Prophet said, "The flag of ‘Ali, the commander of the believers, the leader of the bright-faced people, and my Vicegerent, will come to me at the Fountain of Kauthar."

(7) Baihaqi, Khatib Khawarizmi, and Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i write in their Manaqib that the Prophet said to ‘Ali: "It is not proper that I depart from the people without you becoming my successor since you are the choicest of the believers after me."

(8) Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i, one of the Imams of the Six Books of Traditions, narrates in detail from Ibn Abbas the virtues of ‘Ali in connection with hadith 23 in Khasa'isu'l-Alawi. After describing the rank of the prophet Aaron, the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali: "You are my Vicegerent after me for every believer."

This hadith and others in which the Holy Prophet used the phrase "after me" clearly prove that ‘Ali was his immediate successor.

(9) There is the "Hadith of Creation," which has been narrated in different ways. Imam Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in ‘Manaqib’, and Dailami in ‘Firdaus’ have quoted the Prophet as saying: "I and ‘Ali were created of the same Divine Light 14,000 years before Adam was created.

From the loins of the Prophet Adam and through his Holy progeny, the Light was inherited by Abdu'l-Muttalib, and from him it was divided and inherited by Abdullah, (father of the Prophet) and Abu Talib, (father of ‘Ali). I was granted prophethood, and ‘Ali was granted the caliphate."

(10) Hafiz Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari (d.310 A.H.) writes in his ‘Kitabu'l-Wilaya’ that the Prophet said in the beginning of his renowned address at ‘Ghadir al-Khum’: "The angel Gabriel has conveyed Allah's command to me that I stop at this place and inform the people that ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib is my brother, my successor, my Caliph (Vicegerent) after me. O men! Allah has made ‘Ali your Wali (guardian), and Imam (guide). Obedience to him is obligatory on each one of you; his command is supreme; his utterance is truth; curse be on him who opposes him; Allah's mercy be on him who befriends him."

(11) Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’ reports from the ‘Manaqib’ of Ahmad, and he from Ibn Abbas, a hadith which describes many of ‘Ali's merits. I quote all of it. Ibn Abbas reports that the Prophet said: "O ‘Ali, you are the bearer of my knowledge, my Wali and friend, my successor, the heir of my knowledge, and my Caliph. You are the trustee of the heritage of all the preceding prophets. You are the confidant of Allah on this earth and Allah's proof for the whole of creation.

You are a pillar of Iman (faith) and the guardian of Islam. You are a lamp in darkness, a light of guidance, and for the people of the world you are a raised standard. O ‘Ali! He who follows you is delivered; he who disobeys you will perish; you are the luminous way, and a straight path; you are the leader of pure men, and the head of the believers; to whomsoever I am Master (Maula), you are also his Master (Maula), and I am the Master of every believer (man or woman).

Only he is your friend who is born of lawful wedlock. Allah did not transport me to the heavens to speak with me without telling me, 'O Muhammad! Convey my salutation to ‘Ali and tell him that he is the Imam of my friends and the Light of worshippers.' Congratulations to you, O ‘Ali, on this marvelous excellence."

(12) Abu Mu'ayyid Muwafiqu'd-Din, the best orator of Khawarizm, in his Faza'il of the Commander of the Faithful, printed in 1313 A.H., Chapter XIX, page 240, quotes the sources who reported that the Prophet said: "When I reached ‘Sidratu'l-Muntaha’ ('the farthest Lote Tree,' the highest station during the ‘Mi'raj), I was addressed thus: 'O Muhammad! When you tested the people, whom did you find the most obedient?'

I said ‘Ali.' Allah then said, 'You have told the truth, Muhammad!' Further, he said, 'Have you selected a Vicegerent who will convey your knowledge to the people, and teach my servants from My Book those things which they do not know?' I said, 'O Allah! Whomever you select, I will select.' He said, 'I have selected ‘Ali for you. I make him your Vicegerent and successor.' And He furnished ‘Ali with His knowledge and forbearance. He is the Commander of the Faithful whom no one can equal in rank among his predecessors or successors."

There are many such ‘hadith’ in your authentic books. Some of your just ulama’, like Nizzam Basri, have acknowledged this fact. Salahu'd-Din Safdi in his ‘Wafa Bi'l-Wafiyya’, in connection with the account of Ibrahim Ibn Sayyar Ibn Hani Basri, known as Nizzam Mu'tazali, says: "The Prophet of Allah confirmed the Imamate of ‘Ali and appointed him the Imam (Guide). The companions of the Prophet were also fully aware of it, but ‘Umar, for the sake of Abu Bakr, covered the Imamate of ‘Ali with a curtain."

It is clear from your own books, hadith, and Qur'anic commentaries that ‘Ali occupied the highest position of virtue. Khatib Khawarizmi reports from Ibn Abbas in ‘Manaqib’, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his ‘Tadhkira’, Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in ‘Fusulu'l-Mawadda’, Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, ‘Mawadda V’, quotation from the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, - all confirming with slight variations of words - that the Prophet said: "If all the trees were pens, if the seas were ink, if all the jinn and men were recorders - even then the virtues of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib could not be enumerated."

Sheikh ABDU'S-SALAM: (Turning to Hafiz Muhammad Rashid Sahib) Allow me to say something briefly. (Turning to well-wisher). We never deny the high qualities of ‘Ali, but to confine praise to him alone is not fair since the principal companions of the Holy Prophet were, one and all, men of virtue. You are indulging in one-sided talk, which misleads the people. Permit me to quote a hadith in their praise so that the truth of the matter may be revealed.

Well-Wisher: I'm not concerned with personalities. The Qur'anic verses and authentic hadith’ lead us in one direction. I swear by Allah (S.W.T.) that I do not blindly love, or, hate anyone. I ask the audience to stop me if at any time I resort to anything which is against reason, or, common sense. The ‘hadith’ acknowledged by both [‘Shi’as’ and ‘Sunni’] sects should be relied upon. I do not deny the good qualities of the upright companions of the Prophet (S), but we should search among them for one who is superior to the whole community.

Our discussion is not about virtuous men, as the virtuous were many [virtuous were more than one around Propphet Muhammad (S)]. We should find out who was the most meritorious person after the Prophet (S), so that we may follow him.

Sheikh: You make unnecessary restrictions. In your books there is not a single ‘hadith’ in praise of the caliphs. How can we argue on that basis?

Well-Wisher: On the first night of our discussions, you will recall that Hafiz Sahib himself agreed to a debate on the condition that our arguments be based on verses of the Holy Qur'an, and on ‘hadith’ accepted by both sects.

Since I have your authentic books, I agreed to it. As all of you will confirm, I have not deviated from that stand. In support of my points, I have cited only verses of the Holy Qur'an, and ‘hadith’ recorded in the authentic books of your own eminent scholars.

When you made this condition, you did not realize that you would be trapped later on. Still, I don't want this condition to be taken absolutely. I am prepared to hear even your one-sided ‘hadith’ if they are authentic. Then we can determine facts justly. I have no hesitation in accepting facts in comparing the merits of ‘Ali (a.s.).

Sheikh: You cited a ‘hadith’ concerning ‘Ali's (a.s.) vicegerency, but overlooked the fact that there are many ‘hadith’ about Caliph Abu Bakr.

Well-Wisher: Keeping in mind that your own prominent ‘ulama’, like Dhahabi, Suyuti, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid have reported that the Amawi's and the followers of Abu Bakr have fabricated many ‘hadith’ in praise of Abu Bakr, you may cite a ‘hadith’ from many of those so that a just man may judge its authenticity.

Sheikh: There is an authentic hadith narrated by ‘Umar Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Khalid, who reports from Isa Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas, and he from his father, and he from his grandfather, Abbas, that the Prophet of Islam told that gentleman, "O uncle! Allah has made Abu Bakr Caliph of his religion. So listen to him and obey him so that you may secure deliverance."

Well-Wisher: This is a rejected hadith.

Sheikh: How is it a rejected hadith?

Well-Wisher: Your own prominent ulama’ have rejected it. Because the reporters of this hadith were notorious liars and forgers, your ulama’ do not consider it worthy of acceptance. Dhahabi in his Mizanu'l-I'tidal, writing about Ibrahim Ibn Khalid, and Khatib Baghdadi, writing about ‘Umar Ibn Ibrahim say, "He is a great liar." A hadith narrated by a liar is unacceptable.

Sheikh: It is reported from reliable sources that one of the pious companions of the Prophet, Abu Huraira, narrated that Gabriel appeared before the Holy Prophet and said, "Allah sends His salutation to you. He says, 'I am satisfied with Abu Bakr; ask him if he too is satisfied with me or not.'"

Well-Wisher: We should be very cautious about citing hadith. I draw your attention to a hadith which your own ulama’, like Ibn Hajar (in Isaba) and Ibn Abdu'l-Bar (in Isti'ab) quote from Abu Huraira that the Prophet said, "There are many who misquote me, and one who misrepresents me has his abode in Hell. When a hadith is reported to you on my behalf, you should put it before the Holy Qur'an."

Another hadith acknowledged by both sects, narrated by Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in his Tafsir Kabir, Volume lI, page 271, reports that the Prophet said, "When a hadith from me is reported to you, put it before the Book of Allah. If it agrees with the Holy Qur'an, accept it. Otherwise, reject it." The books of your own eminent ulama’ state that one of those who fabricated hadith in the name of the Holy Prophet was this rejected man, Abu Huraira, whom you have called pious.

Sheikh: I didn't expect a man of your standing to make slanderous remarks about the Prophet's companions.

Well-Wisher: You want me to be in awe of the word "Sahabi" (companion), but you are mistaken if you think the word "Sahabi" necessarily conveys honor. True, the companionship of the Holy Prophet enhances one's virtue, but this is based on the condition that the companion is obedient to the Prophet. If he acts against the instructions of the Prophet, then surely he will be rejected. Weren't the munafiqin (hypocrites) companions of the Prophet? Yes, and they were all cursed.

Sheikh: It is not proved that they were rejected. If they were rejected, what is the proof that they will go to Hell? Is everyone who is rejected or cursed destined for Hell? A cursed person is one who, according to the explicit ordinance of the Holy Qur'an, or the saying of the Prophet, is declared as such.

Well-Wisher: There are clear grounds to show that Abu Huraira was an unreliable man. Your own ulama’ have confirmed this fact. One of the reasons for his being cursed is that, according to the words of the Prophet, he was an associate of the cursed son of the cursed Abu Sufyan.

Abu Huraira was one of the hypocrites. On some occasions in Siffin he offered prayers led by the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali. At other times he sat at the dining table of Mu'awiya to eat his fancy food.

As reported by Zamakhshari in ‘Rabiu'l-Abrar’ and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in the commentary on ‘Nahju'l-Balagha’, when Abu Huraira was asked the reason for his double-dealing policy, he said, "Mu'awiya's food is very rich and savory, and prayers behind ‘Ali are preferable."

Your own ulama’, like Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini in Fara'id, Chapter 37, Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’, Tibrani in ‘Ausar’, Ganji Shafi'i in ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’ (and a host of others) quote from this same Abu Huraira, and others that the Prophet said, "‘Ali is with the Truth, and the Truth is with ‘Ali."

When he left ‘Ali and courted the favor of Mu'awiya, was he not damnable? If one not only keeps silent at seeing the vicious deeds of Mu'awiya, but actually cooperates with him and helps him in order to advance his own worldly position and to fill his belly, is he not to be condemned?

The same Abu Huraira himself narrates (as recorded by your own eminent ulama’, like Hakim Nishapuri in ‘Mustadrak’, Volume II, page 124, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Tibrani, and others) that the Prophet said, "‘Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with ‘Ali.

These two shall not be separated until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar. ‘Ali is from me, and I am from ‘Ali. He who profanes ‘Ali, profanes me. He who profanes me, profanes Allah." Mu'awiya, in his address of the Jum'a prayers, cursed ‘Ali, Hasan, and Husain.

He ordered that in all congregations those revered people should be cursed. So if a man is so intimately associated with such damned people and is pleased with their actions, is he not to be condemned? And, while associating with such people, if he helps them by fabricating hadith and forces people to utter curses against revered people, is he not to be condemned?

Sheikh: Is it reasonable for us to accept these slanders, that a sincere companion of the Prophet, fabricating hadith, may force people to curse ‘Ali?

Well-Wisher: Of course it is hard to believe that a sincere companion would do such a thing. If any of the companions has done such a thing, it means that he was not sincere. There are many hadith narrated by your own ulama’ that the Holy Prophet said, "One who profanes ‘Ali, profanes me and Allah."

Sheikh: To be frank, when you slander the companions of the Holy Prophet, saying that they fabricated hadith, how can we hope that you will not attribute evil motives to the high-ranking ulama’ of the Sunnis? You Shi’as have a remarkable tendency for slandering great men.

Well-Wisher: You are unfair in attributing such things to us. Islamic histories of the past 1,400 years testify against it. From the beginning of the first century of Islam, the Umayyads abused the infallible Imams, the descendants of the Holy Prophet, and their adherents, the Shi’as. Even today, your prominent ulama’ record slanderous reports against the Shi’as in their books in order to mislead the people.

He says that, just as the Jews are enemies of the Christians, the Shi’as are enemies of Islam. He claims that the Shi’as, like the Jews, do not accept the fact that one may be divorced three times from the same person, nor do they accept the practice of 'idda (the prescribed period of chastity for women after divorce).

Both the Shi’as here and the Sunnis who are familiar with their Shi’as friends will laugh at these claims. You will find in all books on Shi’as jurisprudence stipulations regarding three divorces and idda after divorce.

He also alleges that the Shi’as, like the Jews, are the enemies of Gabriel, because Gabriel communicated Allah's commandment (wahi) to the Prophet, not to ‘Ali. (Laughter among the Shi’as audience.) We Shi’as believe in the Holy Prophet. We believe that Allah's commandments were revealed to him through Gabriel, whose rank is far higher than that attributed to him by this worthless writer.

Another of your great ulama’ is Abu Muhammad ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad Ibn Sa'id Ibn Hazm Andalusi (died 456 A.H.), who has recorded particularly queer notions about the Shi’as in his famous Kitabu'l-Fasl fi'l-Milal Wa'n-Nihal. For example, he says that the Shi’as are not Muslims. They are heretics, the followers of Jews and Christians.

In Volume IV, page 182, he writes that, "According to the Shi’as, it is lawful to marry nine women." This report can be disproved easily by consulting Shi’as books which clearly state that it is unlawful to keep more than four wives in permanent marriage at one time. There are many other similar unfounded allegations and filthy things attributed to Shi’as in this book, which you would be ashamed to hear.

One of your most irreligious ulama’ is Ahmad Ibn Abdu'l-Halim Hanbali, known as Ibn Taimiyya (died 728 A.H.). He had extreme malice toward the Shi’as, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, and the descendants of the Prophet. His Minhaju's-Sunna is filled with his bitter enmity against ‘Ali and the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

Anyone who is even slightly acquainted with the facts would be astounded to hear his lies. For example, he writes that "There is no larger group of liars than the Shi’as sect, and it is for this reason that the authors of Siha's did not include in their books hadith narrated by them."

In Volume X, page 23, he says that the Shi’as believe in four fundamentals of religion - tawhid (Oneness of God); adl (justice of Allah); nabuwat (prophethood); and imamate (vicegerency). In fact, in Shi’as books of faith, available everywhere, it is written that the Shi’as faith consists of three fundamentals: tawhid, nabuwat, and ma'ad (the Day of Judgement); adl is part of tawhid and the imamate is part of nabuwat.

In Volume I, page 131, he states that the Shi’as do not gather in the mosques. They do not offer jum'a or congregational prayers. If they ever offer prayer, they do it individually. (Laughter among the Shi’as.) But of course we place great emphasis on congregational prayers. In many cities of Iraq and Iran, which are centers of the Shi’as, our mosques are crowded with worshippers offering congregational prayers. On the same page, he writes that the Shi’as do not make the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba.

"Their Hajj (pilgrimage) consists only in visiting the tombs, which they consider superior to the Pilgrimage to Mecca. They condemn those who do not go for ziarat to the tombs." (Laughter.) Shi’as books of prayer contain a special Chapter for the Hajj prayer (Kitabu'l-Hajj).

Shi’as theologians have written many books prescribing the rituals for the Hajj, wherein special instructions have been given to perform the Hajj rites. Many hadith from our Imams insist that if a Muslim (Shi’as or Sunni) has the means, and yet fails to perform the Hajj, he is excommunicated from Islam.

When he dies, he is told: "Die whatever death you can, be it the death of a Jew, a Christian, or a fire-worshiper." Can you believe that in the face of such instructions Shi’as would refrain from performing the Hajj?

In addition to these misrepresentations, this wicked man has said that a great Shi’as Scholar, Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Nu'man (Sheikh Mufid), wrote ‘Manasikhu'l-Hajj li'l-Mashahid’. The correct title is ‘Mansikhu'z-Ziarat’, which is available everywhere, and which contains instructions about the visit to the places of ziarat, including the Holy shrines of the most revered Imams.

If you consult these books of ziarat, you will find that a visit to the tombs of the Holy Prophet and the Imams is commendable, not obligatory. The best proof against the allegation of this irreligious man is the practice followed by Shi’as, who make the pilgrimage by the thousands every year. Another false accusation of this liar can be found in Volume I, page 11, where he says that the Shi’as call their dogs by the name of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and always curse them (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar). (Laughter among the Shi’as.) This is ridiculous.

According to the Shi’as belief, the dog is utterly polluted. A Muslim house with a dog is deprived of Allah's blessings. Therefore, Shi’as Muslims are strictly forbidden to domesticate dogs except under certain conditions (hunting, protecting the house, or herding sheep).

One of the many reasons for discord between Yazid and the grandson of the Prophet, Imam Husain, was that Yazid was fond of dogs and domesticated them without good reason. Ibn Taimiyya also writes that since the Shi’as are awaiting the reappearance of the last of their Imams, in many places, particularly in the sardab (underground hall) of Samarra (where the Holy Imam disappeared), they keep ready a horse.

They call for their Imam to appear, saying that they are fully armed to serve him. He also writes that the Shi’as turn toward the East during the last days of Ramadhan and call for the Imam to appear. Some of them even forego their ritual prayers, thinking that if they were busy saying their prayers and the Imam appeared; they might be deprived of their service to him (laughter by the Sunnis and the Shi’as). We are not so much surprised at this wicked man's ridiculous stories.

But we are surprised at the behavior of the present ulama’ of Egypt and Damascus who, without asking the Shi’as with whom they live, follow the absurdities of men like Ibn Taimiyya. It would be tiring to give a long list of the inaccurate reports of Ibn Hajar Makki, Hafiz, and Qazi Ruzbahan. Their books are known, although from the point of view of authenticity, they have no value.

For instance, the Milal wa'n-Nihal of Muhammad Ibn Abdu'l-Karim Shahrastani (died 548 A.H.), in the eyes of scholars, has not the least value. One will not find anything in it except utterly false beliefs attributed to Shi’as, like the worship of ‘Ali and belief in the transmigration of the soul. Obviously he was not a man of learning. Writing about Ithna Ashari Shi’as, he says that the tomb of ‘Ali Ibn Hadi Muhammad Naqi, who came after Imam Muhammad Taqi, is in Qum.

But even children know that the Holy shrine of Imam ‘Ali Naqi is located adjacent to the shrine of his son, Imam Hasan Askari, in Samarra. I don't think further references of this nature are necessary to prove that the Sunni ulama’ have concocted false reports concerning the Shi’as. And I am not alone in levelling charges against the integrity of Abu Huraira. The Sunni ulama’ have also exposed his bad character in their own books.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, in his commentary on the ‘Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume I, page 358, and in Volume IV, reports from his Sheikh and teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan organized a group of companions of the Holy Prophet and the children of the companions for the purpose of fabricating hadith. Among those who concocted filthy hadith against ‘Ali were Abu Huraira, Amir Ibn As, and Mughira Ibn Shaba.

Giving details of these stories, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid narrates that Abu Huraira once entered the Kufa mosque and saw a huge gathering of people who had come to welcome Mu'awiya. He shouted to the crowd: "O people of Iraq. Do you think that I would tell a lie in opposing Allah and His Prophet and buy Hellfire for myself? Hear from me what I have heard from the Prophet. 'Every Prophet has a Haram (sacred dwelling place) and my Haram is Medina.

One who is responsible for innovation in Medina is cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by all humanity.' I swear by Allah that ‘Ali was responsible for an innovation." (That is, ‘Ali incited dissension among the people and so, according to the Prophet, should be cursed). When Mu'awiya learned of this (that Abu Huraira did such a thing for him and did it in ‘Ali's capital, Kufa), he sent for him, gave him a reward, and made him the governor of Medina.

Aren't his misdeeds sufficient to prove that he deserves condemnation? Is it proper that a man who mistreats the most noble of the caliphs should be regarded as pious simply because he had once been a companion of the Prophet?

Sheikh: On what grounds do Shi’as consider him accursed?

Well-Wisher: There are many arguments in support of our view. One of them is that one who abuses the Prophet is, according to both sects, condemned. According to the hadith which I mentioned earlier, the Holy Prophet said, "One who abuses ‘Ali, abuses me; one who abuses me, abuses Allah." It is clear that Abu Huraira was one of those who not only abused ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, but who fabricated hadith to incite others to abuse him.

We also condemn Abu Huraira for his collusion with Busr Ibn Artat in the massacre of thousands of Muslims. It has been reported by your own historians, including Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Allama Samhudi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khallikan, and others that Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan sent the cruel Busr Ibn Artat with 4,000 Syrian soldiers to Yemen via Medina to crush the people of Yemen and the Shi’as of ‘Ali. The assailants murdered thousands of Muslims in Medina, Mecca, Ta'if, Tabala' (a city of Tihama), Najran, Safa, and its suburbs.

They did not spare the young or old of the Bani Hashim or the Shi’as of ‘Ali. They even murdered the two small sons of the Holy Prophet's cousin, Ubaidullah Ibn Abbas, the governor of Yemen, who had been appointed by ‘Ali. It is said that more than 30,000 Muslims were killed on the order of this tyrant.

The Bani Umayya and their followers committed these insane atrocities. Your beloved Abu Huraira witnessed this slaughter and was not only silent but actively supported it. Innocent people, like Jabir ibn Abdullah Ansari, and Abu Ayyub Ansari sought refuge.

Even the house of Abu Ayyub Ansari, who was one of the Prophet's chief companions, was set on fire. When this army turned towards Mecca, Abu Huraira remained in Medina. Now I ask you to tell us, in the name of Allah, whether this deceitful man who had been in the company of the Holy Prophet for three years, and who narrated more than 5,000 hadith from the Prophet, had not heard those famous hadith regarding Medina.

The ulama’ of both the sects (like Allama Samhudi in ‘Ta'rikhu'l-Medina’, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkira’, page 163) have quoted from the Holy Prophet (S), who said repeatedly: "He who threatens the people of Medina with oppression will be threatened by Allah and will be cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by humanity.

Allah will not accept anything from him. May he be cursed who threatens the people of Medina. If anyone harms the people of Medina, Allah will melt him like lead in fire." So why did Abu Huraira join the army which devastated Medina? Why did he fabricate hadith in opposition to the rightful successor to the Prophet? And why did he incite people to revile the man about whom the Prophet had said: "To abuse him is to abuse me"? You decide whether a man who fabricated hadith in the name of the Prophet was not cursed.

Sheikh: It is unkind of you to call the most reliable companion of the Holy Prophet an irreligious fabricator.

Well-Wisher: It is not I alone who am "unkind" to Abu Huraira. The first man who was unkind to him was the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. Ibn Athir and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his ‘Sharhe-Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume III, page 104 (printed in Egypt), and several others have reported that after Caliph ‘Umar appointed Abu Huraira governor of Bahrain in 21 A.H., the people informed the Caliph that Abu Huraira had amassed great wealth and had purchased many horses.

‘Umar therefore deposed him in 23 A.H. As soon as Abu Huraira entered the court, the Caliph said: "O enemy of Allah and enemy of His Book! Have you stolen Allah's property?" He replied, "I never committed theft, but the people have given me gifts."

Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqat, Volume IV, page 90, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, and Ibn Abd al-Rabbih in Iqdu'l-Farid, Volume I, write that the Caliph said: "'When I made you the governor of Bahrain, you had not even shoes on your feet, but now I have heard that you have purchased horses for 1,600 dinars.

How did you acquire this wealth?' He replied, 'These were men's gifts which profit has multiplied much.' The Caliph's face grew red with anger, and he lashed him so violently that his back bled. Then he ordered the 10,000 dinars which Abu Huraira had collected in Bahrain be taken from him, and deposited in the account of the Baitu'-Mal."

This was not the first time that ‘Umar beat Abu Huraira. Muslim writes in his ‘Sahih’, Volume I, page 34, that during the time of the Prophet, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab beat Abu Huraira so severely that the latter fell down on the ground. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in his commentary on ‘Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume I, page 360: "Abu Ja'far Asqalani has said: 'According to our great men, Abu Huraira was a wicked fellow. The hadith narrated by him were not acceptable.

‘Umar beat him with a lash and told him that he had changed hadith and had attributed false sayings to the Holy Prophet.'" Ibn Asakir in his ‘Ta'rikh Kabir’, and Muttaqi in his ‘Kanzu'l-Umma’ report that Caliph ‘Umar lashed him, rebuked him, and forbade him to narrate hadith from the Holy Prophet.

‘Umar said: "Because you narrate hadith in large numbers from the Holy Prophet, you are fit only for attributing lies to him. (That is, one expects a wicked man like you to utter only lies about the Holy Prophet.) So you must stop narrating hadith from the Prophet; otherwise, I will send you to the land of Dus." (A clan in Yemen, to which Abu Huraira belonged.)

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his commentary on ‘Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume I, page 360 (printed in Egypt) reports from his teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that ‘Ali said, "Beware of the greatest liar among the people, Abu Huraira Dusi." Ibn Qutayba, in ‘Ta'wil al-Mukhtalifu'l-Hadith’, and Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’, Volume III, and Dhahabi in ‘Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak’, and Muslim in his ‘Sahih’, Volume II, reporting about the characteristics of Abu Huraira, all say that A’ysha repeatedly contradicted him and said, "Abu Huraira is a great liar who fabricates hadith and attributes them to the Holy Prophet."

In short, it is not we alone who have rejected Abu Huraira. According to Caliph ‘Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha, and other companions and followers of the Prophet said that he was completely unreliable. Accordingly, the Sheikhs of the ‘Mu'tazilite’s and their Imams, and the ‘Hanafi’ ulama’ generally reject the hadith narrated by Abu Huraira. Moreover, in his commentary on Muslim's ‘Sahih’, Volume IV, Nadwi emphasizes this point: "Imam Abu Hanifa said, 'The companions of the Prophet were generally pious and just.

I accept every hadith with evidence narrated by them, but I do not accept the hadith whose source is Abu Huraira, Anas Ibn Malik, or Samra Ibn Jundab."

We reject the same Abu Huraira, whom Caliph ‘Umar lashed and called a thief and a liar. He was rejected by Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha, Imam Abu Hanifa, and by many companions and followers of the Holy Prophet.

We reject the same Abu Huraira who was rejected and called a liar by our master, the chief of the monotheists, ‘Ali, and by the Holy Imams and descendants of the Prophet. We reject Abu Huraira who was a belly-worshiper, who, despite knowing the superiority of ‘Ali, ignored him.

He preferred his patron, the damned Mu'awiya, sat at his table to relish dainty dishes, and concocted hadith in opposition to ‘Ali. In view of our discussion so far, you and I are obliged to see to it that when a hadith from the Holy Prophet is under consideration, we should first refer it to the Holy Qur'an. If the hadith agrees with the Qur'an, we should accept it, otherwise not.

The hadith which you narrated earlier (although it is one-sided) may be referred to the Holy Qur'an. If there is no hindrance, we will surely accept it. One ayat of the Qur'an, however, says:

"And certainly We created man and know what his mind suggests. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." (50:16)

You are aware that hablu'l-warid (jugular vein) is a common expression used to express extreme nearness. The meaning of this verse is that Allah is All-Knowing. Nothing is hidden from Him, however deep it may be in man's breast.

Allah knows the secrets of our hearts. And in the Chapter of "Yunus" He says:

"And you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite concerning it any portion of the Qur'an, nor do you do any work but We are witnesses over you when you enter into it. And there does not lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in heaven, nor anything less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book." (10:61)

According to these verses, and according to common sense, nothing is hidden from Allah. He knows what man does or thinks.

Now compare this hadith with these two verses, and see whether they can be reconciled. How is it possible that Allah Almighty would not be aware of the pleasure of Abu Bakr, so that He Himself might be obligated to ask him whether he was pleased with Him or not? Common sense and the Holy Qur'an indicate that this "hadith" is false.

Sheikh: There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet said: "Allah will show Himself to all the people in general, and to Abu Bakr in particular." He also said, "Allah did not put anything into my breast that He did not put into Abu Bakr's breast." He also said: "I and Abu Bakr are like two horses who are equal to each other in a race." Again he said: "In the sky there are 80,000 angels who pray for blessings for him who is a friend of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. And in the next level of the sky there are 80,000 angels who curse him who is an enemy of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar."

The Holy Prophet also said: "Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are the best of all mankind from beginning to end." Abu Bakr's and ‘Umar's rank can be assessed from the hadith in which the Holy Prophet said: "Allah made me from His light, Abu Bakr from my light, and ‘Umar from Abu Bakr's light, and my followers from ‘Umar's light. ‘Umar is the lamp of the People of Paradise." There are many such hadith recorded in our authentic books. I have narrated only a few so that you may know the real position of the caliphs.

Well-Wisher: The meaning of these hadith leads to heresy and infidelity, which clearly proves that the Holy Prophet could not have said such things. The first hadith implies that Allah has a body and it is infidelity to believe that Allah has a body. The second hadith indicates that Abu Bakr shared in what was revealed to the Holy Prophet. The third hadith implies that the Holy Prophet was in no way superior to Abu Bakr. The other hadith conflict with innumerable hadith, which are accepted by both sects, that the best people of the world are the Prophet Muhammad and his descendants.

Apart from these clear facts, your own distinguished ulama’, like Muqaddasi in his ‘Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a’, Firuzabadi Shafi'i in his ‘Safaru's-Sa'adat’, Hasan Ibn Athir Dhahabi in ‘Mizanu'l-I'tidal’, Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Khatib Baghdadi in his ‘Ta'rikh’, Abu'l-Faraj Ibn Jauzi in ‘Kitabu'l-Muzu'a’, and Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in ‘Al-Lu'‘Ali'l-Masnu'a fi'l-Abadusi'l-Muzu'a’, all concluded that these hadith are fabricated. They all insisted that these hadith are forged. They conflict with The Holy Qur'an and with common sense.

Sheikh: But consider another hadith, which surely is authentic. The Holy Prophet said: "Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are the masters of the old men of Paradise."

Well-Wisher: If you would examine this supposed hadith more closely, you might find that, apart from the fact that your own ulama’ have rejected it, this hadith cannot possibly be from the Holy Prophet. Everyone knows that Paradise will not be inhabited by old people. There are no gradual changes there. There are many reports accepted by both sects which relate to this matter. One of them is the affair of Ashja'iyya, an old woman who came to the Prophet. In the course of his talk, the Prophet said: "Old women will not enter Paradise."

The woman was deeply saddened and she said, weeping, "O Prophet of Allah, this means I shall not enter Paradise." Saying this, she departed. The Prophet said: "Tell her that on that day she will be young and will enter Paradise." Then he recited the following verse of the Holy Qur'an:

"Surely We have made them to grow into a (new) growth, then We have made them virgins, loving, equals in age, for the sake of the companions of the right hand." (56:35-38)

In another hadith accepted by both you and us, the Holy Prophet said: "When the inhabitants of Paradise enter Heaven, they will be youthful with pure clean faces, curly hair, charming eyes, 33 years of age."

Sheikh: Your statements are true as they are, but this is a specific hadith.

Well-Wisher: I don't understand. What do you mean by a "specific hadith"? Do you mean that Allah will send a group of old men to Paradise so that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may be their masters? Besides, your own prominent ulama’ regard this hadith as fabricated. The Prophet gave us a procedure for validating hadith. I stated earlier that any hadith which is not consistent with the Holy Qur'an is to be rejected.

Our own scholars reject several hadith purported to have originated with the Prophet or with the Holy Imams on the basis of the principle enunciated by the Prophet: "Whenever a hadith is reported as having come from me, refer it to the Holy Qur'an; if it is consistent with it, accept it; otherwise, reject it." Accordingly, our scholars do not accept hadith which are inconsistent with the Holy Qur'an. I stated earlier that your own ulama’ have written treatises on the rejection of fabricated hadith.

For example, Sheikh Majdu'd-Din Muhammad ibn Yaqub Firuzabadi in ‘Safaru's-Sa'ada’ (p. 142), Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in ‘Kitabu'l-Lu'‘Ali’, Ibn Jauzi in ‘Muzu'a’, Muqaddasi in ‘Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a’, and Sheikh Muhammad ibn Darwish (Mashhur be Hut al-Beiruti) in ‘Asna'l-Talib’ - all have said that the chain of narrators of the hadith stating that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are the masters of the old men of Paradise includes Yahya ibn 'Anbasa. Dhahabi says that this Yahya is an unreliable narrator, and Ibn Jan held that Yahya used to fabricate hadith.

Thus, apart from my previous arguments, even your own ulama’ consider it a false hadith. In fact, it is probable that it was fabricated by the followers of Abu Bakr, the Umayya family. In order to humiliate the Bani Hashim and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, they used to fabricate hadith parallel to those authentically narrated in praise of the family of the Prophet.

Men like Abu Huraira, in order to gain access to the ruling coterie of the Bani Umayya, often fabricated hadith. Because of their hostility to the descendants of the Prophet, they concocted hadith parallel to those accepted by both Shi’as and Sunni ulama’.

Well-Wisher: The authentic hadith is that the Prophet said: "Hasan and Husain are the foremost of the youth of Paradise and their father is superior to them." Many ulama’ have narrated this hadith. For example, Khatib Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in Khasa'is-il-Alawi (three hadith), Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’, page 159, Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 54, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkira’, quoting from Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal,

Sibt Ibn Jauzi on p. 133 of ‘Tadhkiratu'l-Mawadda’, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’, Tirmidhi in ‘Sunan’, and Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’, Chapter 97, recorded this hadith and the latter added that the great narrator of hadith, Imam Abdu'l-Qasim Tibrani, also recorded this hadith in ‘Mu'ajamu'l-Kabir’, and listed all its various narrators, such as the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, ‘Umar ibn Khattab (the second Caliph), Hudhaifa Yamani, Abu Sa'id Khadri, Jabir ibn Abdullah Ansari, Abu Huraira, Usama ibn Zaid, and Abdullah ibn ‘Umar.

Thereafter, Muhammad ibn Yusuf has commented that it is an unquestionably genuine hadith. The unbroken continuity of the chain of narrators of this hadith is a proof of its being authentic. Further, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in ‘Hilyatu'l-Auliya’, Ibn Asakir in ‘Ta'rikh Kabir’, Volume IV, page 206, Hikam in Mustadrak, Ibn Hajar Makki in ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’. - in short, all of your eminent scholars have confirmed the authenticity of this hadith.

Sheikh: But consider this hadith, the authenticity of which no one will deny. The Holy Prophet said: "In whatever nation Abu Bakr lives, it is not proper that any other person be preferred to him." This hadith proves that Abu Bakr is superior to the whole umma.

Well-Wisher: I regret that you accept a hadith so uncritically. Had this hadith been narrated by the Prophet, he himself would have acted upon it. But he gave preference to ‘Ali in the presence of Abu Bakr. Was Abu Bakr not present at the time of Mubahala when ‘Ali was chosen as the Prophet's self?

In the Battle of Tabuk, when the older and more experienced Abu Bakr was there, why did the Prophet make Hazrat ‘Ali his deputy and Caliph? Why was Abu Bakr deposed by divine command in favor of ‘Ali when the older man had been sent to Mecca to preach Islam and to recite verses from the ninth Chapter of the Qur'an, "The Immunity"?

While Abu Bakr was present, why did the Prophet take ‘Ali with him to Mecca to break the idols, letting him mount his own shoulders, ordering him to smash the idol Hubal? Why, in the presence of Abu Baker, did the Prophet send ‘Ali to preach among the people of Yemen? Finally, why did the Prophet make ‘Ali his successor and Vicegerent instead of Abu Bakr?

Sheikh: There is a very strong hadith from the Holy Prophet which cannot be contradicted. It is related by Amr ibn As who said: "One day I asked the Prophet: 'O Prophet of Allah! Whom do you love most among the women?' He replied, 'A’ysha.' I said: 'Whom do you love best among the men?' He replied, 'A’ysha's father, Abu Bakr.'" Since the Prophet preferred Abu Bakr over all other men, he was superior to the whole community. This fact in itself is the most compelling proof of the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's caliphate.

Well-Wisher: Apart from the fact that this hadith is concocted by Abu Bakr's supporters, it is inconsistent with authentic hadith which are accepted by both sects. This hadith should be considered from two points of view: from the side of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha and from the side of Abu Bakr. The Prophet could not have said that of all women he loved A’ysha most. I have already stated earlier that this contradicts many authentic hadith in both Sunni and Shi’as books.

Sheikh: Which hadith does this tradition contradict?

Well-Wisher: There are many hadith about the mother of the Imams, Fatima Zahra, narrated by your own ulama’, which contradict your statement. Hafiz Abu Bakr Baihaqi in his ‘Ta'rikh’, Hafiz Ibn Abdu'l-Bar in ‘Isti'ab’, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, and others of your ulama’ have reported that the Prophet said repeatedly: "Fatima is the best of all the women of my community."

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’ and Hafiz Abu Bakr Shirazi in ‘Nuzulu'l-Qur'an Fi ‘Ali’ narrate from Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya, and he from the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, Ibn Abdu'l-Barr in Isti'ab, in the account of Fatima, related from Ummu'l-Mu'minin Khadija, from Abdu'l-Warith Ibn Sufyan and from Abu Dawud, and Anas Ibn Malik, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Chapter 55 of ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, Mawadda XIII - these and many other narrators of hadith have reported from Anas Ibn Malik that the Prophet said:

"There are four pre-eminent women of the world: Mary, daughter of Imran; Asiya, daughter of Mazahim; Khadija, daughter of Khalid; and Fatima, daughter of Muhammad." Khatib in his ‘Ta'rikh’ Baghdad narrates that the Prophet declared these four women the best of all the women of the world. Then he pronounced Fatima to be superior to them all in this world and in the hereafter.

Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Bukhari in his Sahih, and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’ narrate from A’ysha Bint Abi Bakr that the Prophet said to Fatima: "O Fatima, I give you the good tidings that Allah made you superior to all the women of the world, and made you the purest of all the women of Islam."

Also Bukhari in his Sahih, Part IV, page 64, Muslim in Sahih, Part II, in the Chapter "Merits of Fatima," Hamidi in his Jam'a Bainu's-Sahihain, Abdi in his Jam'a Bainu's-Sihahu's-Sitta - these and many others have reported on the authority of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha that the Prophet said: "O Fatima! Are you not happy that you are the chief of the women of all the world?"

Ibn Hajar Asqalani has quoted the same passage in his Isaba in connection with the life of Fatima with the version: "You are the best of all the women of the world." Also, Bukhari, Muslim, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tibrani, and Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi - all have recorded this hadith.

In addition, Bukhari and Muslim, each in his Sahih, Imam Tha'labi in his Tafsir, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in ‘Musnad’, Tibrani in ‘Mu'jamu'l-Kabir’, Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 32, on the authority of the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim, ‘Manaqib’ of Hakim, Wasit and Wahidi, the ‘Hilyatu'l-Auliya’ of Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, and Fara'id of Hamwaini, Ibn Hajar Makki in ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, under verse 14 on the authority of Ahmad, Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i in ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, page 8,

In short, most of your eminent ulama’ (barring a few staunch followers of the Bani Umayya and enemies of the Ahlul Bayt), have narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas and others that when the following verse of the Holy Qur'an was revealed:

"Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein..." (42:23)

a group of companions asked "O Prophet of Allah, who are those of your relatives whose love has been made obligatory on us by Allah?" The Prophet replied, "They are ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain." Some hadith contain the words "and their sons," meaning Hasan and Husain.

Even Ibn Hajar (a very intolerant person) in his ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, page 88, Hafiz Jamalu'd-Din Zarandi in ‘Mi'raju'l-Rasul’, Sheikh Abdullah Shabrawi in ‘Kitabu'l-Ittihaf’, page 29, Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Sabban of Egypt in ‘As'afu'r-Ra'ghibin’, page 119, and others have related from Imam Muhammad Ibn Idris Shafi'i, who is one of your four Imams and the religious head of the Shafi'is, that he used to say: "O Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet of Allah! Love for you has been made obligatory for us by Allah, as revealed in the Holy Qur'an (referring to the above verse).

It is sufficient for your dignity that if one does not send salutations to you in the ritual prayers, his prayers will not be accepted." Now I ask you, can the one-sided hadith reported by you stand against all these authentic hadith which have been accepted by both the Sunni and Shi’as sects?

In regard to the Prophet's love for you A’ysha, do you think that because of his sensual desires he loved A’ysha more than Fatima? It is true that A’ysha was his wife and therefore an Ummu'l-Mu'minin (mother of the believers) like the other wives of the Prophet.

But is it conceivable that he loved A’ysha more than he loved Fatima, whose love was made obligatory in the Holy Qur'an, for whom the verse of purity was revealed and who was included in the Mubahala? Surely you know that the Prophet and the vicegerents were not motivated by sensual desires, and that they looked only to Allah.

This dedication was particularly true for the last of the Prophets. He loved those whom Allah loved. Should we reject these authentic hadith which have been accepted by ulama’ of both sects, and which agree with the verses of the Holy Qur'an, or should we regard the hadith that you have just narrated as fabricated?

You claim that the Prophet said that he loved Abu Bakr more than any other man. But this claim is also at variance with many other authentic hadith which have been narrated by your own ulama’, who have insisted that, according to the Prophet, the most dearly loved man was ‘Ali.

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in his ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 55, narrates from Tirmidhi Buraida's hadith that, according to the Prophet, the most dearly loved woman was Fatima and the most dearly loved man was ‘Ali. Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’, Chapter 91, reports on the authority of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha that she said: "Allah did not create any one whom the Holy Prophet loved more than ‘Ali." He adds that this is the hadith which Ibn Jarir in his ‘Manaqib’, and Ibn Asakir Damishqi in his translation have narrated from ‘Ali.

Muhyi'd-Din and Imamu'l-Haramain Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Shafi'i relates from Tirmidhi in ‘Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba’ that people asked A’ysha which woman was loved most by the Prophet, and she replied, "Fatima." Then she was asked about the man loved most by the Prophet and she replied, "Her husband, ‘Ali bins Abu Talib."

Further, he related from the Mukhalis of Dhahabi and Hafiz Abu'l-Qasim Damishqi and he from A’ysha that she said: "I have not seen a man more loved by the Holy Prophet than ‘Ali, nor a woman more loved than Fatima."

In addition, the Sheikh relates from Hafiz Khajandi and he from ‘Ma'azatu'l-Ghifariyya’ that she said: "I went to have an audience with the Prophet in A’ysha's house while ‘Ali was outside the house. The Prophet said to A’ysha, 'This (‘Ali) is the dearest to me, and the most honored among all men. Recognize his right and pay respectful regard to his position.'"

Sheikh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i, who is one of your prominent ulama’, recorded in ‘Kitabu'l-Ittihaf bi Hubbi'l-Ashraf’, page 9, Sulayman Balkhi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, and Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i in ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, page 6, from Tirmidhi, and he from Jami' ibn ‘Umar, all narrated the following: "I went to Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha with my aunt (father's sister), and we inquired of her who was loved most by the Holy Prophet. She replied, 'Among women it was Fatima and among men, her husband, ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib.'"

This same hadith has been related by Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, ‘Mawadda II’, with the variation that Jami' ibn ‘Umar said that he received this reply from his aunt.

Similarly, Khatib Khawarizmi has related this hadith from Jami' ibn ‘Umar, and the latter from A’ysha at the end of Chapter 4 of his ‘Manaqib’. Ibn Hajar Makki, in ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, towards the end of Chapter 2, after recording 40 hadith on the merits of ‘Ali, relates the following hadith from A’ysha: "Among women, Fatima was the woman most loved by the Holy Prophet of Allah and among men, her husband." Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i, in ‘Matalib-us Su'ul’, page 7, after recording several specific hadith on this issue, expresses his own conclusion in the following words:

"These authentic and unequivocal narrations prove that Fatima was the most beloved of the Prophet above all other women. She is the highest in rank of all the women of Paradise and also the foremost of women of this community as well as the foremost of the women of Medina."

These reliable hadith clearly establish that of all creatures, ‘Ali and Fatima were the most loved by the Prophet. Another proof of the Prophet's preferring ‘Ali to other men is the "Hadith of the Bird" (Hadith al-Ta'ir). This hadith is so well known and so commonly accepted that we need not mention all its sources. I will mention only some of them.

Most of your prominent ulama’, like Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nisa'i, and Sijistani in their Siha, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his commentary on ‘Nahju'l-Balagha’, Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’, and Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 8, and a host of other reliable authors have recorded the ‘hadith al-Ta'ir’ in their works. They verify that this hadith was reported by 24 narrators of hadith from Anas Ibn Malik.

Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in his ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’ writes about it in these words: "In the books of authentic hadith and reliable narrations, the hadith al-Ta'ir from Anas Ibn Malik is indisputably correct." Sibt Ibn Jauzi, on page 23 of his ‘Tadhkira’, and ‘Sunan’ of Tirmidhi and Mas'udi on page 49 of Volume II of ‘Muruju'dh-Dhahab’, have focussed especially on the last part of this hadith which contains the Prophet's prayer and its acceptance by Allah.

Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in the 9th hadith of his ‘Khasa'isu'l-Alawi’, and Hafiz Ibn Iqda and Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari have all referred to the unbroken chain of narrators, and to the authentic sources of this hadith, saying that it was narrated by 35 companions of the Holy Prophet from Anas Ibn Malik.

In short, all your distinguished ulama’ have verified the authenticity of this hadith and have included it in their books. Allama Sayyid Hamid Husain has dedicated an entire volume of his ‘Abaqatu'l-Anwar’ to this hadith. He collected all reliable sources from your distinguished ulama’ and clearly proved the authenticity of this hadith.

According to this hadith, one day a woman brought a gift of a roasted bird to the Prophet. Before eating it, the Prophet, raising his hands, invoked Allah thus: "O Allah! Of your whole creation, send the person who is the dearest to you and to me, so that he may partake of this roasted bird with me."

‘Ali then came in and ate the roasted bird with the Holy Prophet.

Some of your books, such as Fusulu'l-Muhimma of Maliki, Ta'rikh of Hafiz Nishapuri, Kifayatu't-Talib of Ganji Shafi'i, and Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, etc., in which the hadith has been reported from Anas ibn Malik, have recorded that Anas said: "The Prophet had not finished his invocation when ‘Ali came into the house, but I kept the matter secret. When ‘Ali stamped his foot the third time, the Prophet ordered me to let him in.

When ‘Ali entered, the Prophet said: 'Allah's Mercy be upon you; what brings you to me?' ‘Ali then told him that he came to him three times but was allowed entrance only this time. The Prophet asked what made me behave like that, and I replied: "The truth is that, on hearing your invocation, I wished that such an honor might fall to the lot of someone of my tribe." Now I ask you respected people whether the invocation of the Holy Prophet was accepted or rejected by Allah.

Sheikh: Obviously Allah accepted it since He has promised in the Holy Qur'an that He would accept the Prophet's invocation. Moreover, Allah knew that the Prophet would not make an inappropriate request. So Allah always accepted his invocation.

Well-Wisher: Allah sent ‘Ali, the most deserving person in His creation, to the Prophet. Your own scholars have confirmed this event. Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i has in his Matalib-us Su'ul, Chapter 1, Part 5, page 15, established the high position of ‘Ali as the beloved of Allah and of the Prophet on the basis of the hadith of Ensign (Rayat) and the hadith of the Bird (Ta'ir). In that connection he says: "The intention of the Prophet was that the people should understand the unique and high distinction of ‘Ali, who attained the highest pinnacle to be reached by the pious."

Also Hafiz and Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i (died 658 A.H.) writes in his Kifayatu't-talib, Chapter 33, referring to the virtues of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, that this hadith clearly proves that ‘Ali was the dearest person in creation to Allah.

Later he says that Hakim Abu Abdullah Hafiz Nishapuri related this hadith al-Ta'ir of Anas from 86 narrators and also recorded the names of all 86 narrators. (See Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 32). That "hadith" quoted by you, in comparison with the hadith narrated by your own high-ranking ulama’ (excepting a few stubborn fanatics), cannot be relied upon and would be rejected by learned men.

Sheikh: I'm afraid that you have made up your mind not to accept what we say.

Well-Wisher: How can you attribute such bias to me? Can you cite a single instance in which you have put forward a cogent argument and I have unreasonably rejected it? I swear that in religious debates with the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, and the Brahmins, the ignorant Baha'is in Iran, the Qadanis in India, and the materialists - in all of these circumstances, I never acted obstinately in my argument. I never adopted a refractory attitude towards these unbelievers - how could I do so with you, my brothers in Islam?

Sheikh: We read the account of your debate with the Hindus and Brahmins of Lahore in the newspapers. We were greatly impressed by it. Although we had not met you, we felt we were morally affiliated with you. I hope that Allah will lead you and us to the right path. We believe that if there is any doubt about a certain hadith, we should, according to your proposal, refer it to the Holy Qur'an.

However, if you question the excellence of Caliph Abu Bakr and the mode of caliphate of the major caliphs, and if you consider the hadith dubious, will you also hesitate to believe an argument based on the verses of the Holy Qur'an?

Well-Wisher: May Allah not grant us the day when we doubt facts based on the Holy Qur'an or authentic hadith. However, when we have entered into a religious debate with any nation or community, they also argued from the verses of the Holy Qur'an to establish their point of view.

Since the verses of the Holy Qur'an have various levels of meaning, the last Prophet, in order to guard the people against misunderstanding, did not leave the Holy Qur'an as the sole source of guidance. As has been acknowledged by both sects (Shi’as and Sunnis), he himself said: "I leave with you two great things: the Book of Allah (Qur'an) and my descendants.

If you are attached to these two, never, never shall you go astray after me. Verily, these two shall never be separated from one another until they meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar." For this reason, the meaning of the revelation of the Holy Qur'an should be sought either from the Prophet, the primary interpreter of the Holy Qur'an, or after him, from the equals of the Holy Qur'an, the Holy descendants of the Prophet. The Holy Qur'an says:

The ‘Ahle'dh-dhikr’ means the people of the Remembrance, ‘Ali and the Holy Imams, his descendants, who are the equals of the Holy Qur'an. Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi-in his ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 39, quoting from the ‘Tafsir al-Kashfu'l-Bayan’ of Imam Tha'labi, narrates from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, who said: "‘Ali said: 'We descendants of the Holy Prophet are the people of the Remembrance.'" Since Dhikr, "Remembrance," is one of the names of the Holy Qur'an, this family contains the people of the Qur'an.

As reported by your and our ulama’, ‘Ali said: "Ask me anything you like before I leave you. Ask me about the Holy Book (The Qur'an) since I know about every verse in it - whether it was revealed in the night or during the day, on a plain field or in the steep mountains.

By Allah, no verse of the Holy Qur'an was revealed but I know about what it was revealed, where it was revealed, and about what person it was revealed. Allah Almighty has endowed me with an eloquent tongue and a wise mind."

Therefore, basing arguments upon verses of the Holy Qur'an should be in accordance with their authentic meaning and the interpretations given by those capable of reliable commentary. Otherwise, everyone would give his own interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an, according to his scope of knowledge and faith, and that would only result in differences of opinion and conflicting ideas. With this in mind, I ask you to cite your verses.

"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking grace from Allah and (His) good pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration." (48:29)

First, this verse proves the superiority of Abu Bakr. Second, it vindicates the position of the four caliphs as opposed to the claim of the Shi’as sect that ‘Ali was the first caliph. This verse unequivocally states that ‘Ali was the fourth caliph.

Well-Wisher: Certainly this verse does not give any obvious indication about the mode of appointment of the caliphs or about the excellence of Abu Bakr. Therefore, you must point out at what place of the verse this meaning is concealed.

Sheikh: In the beginning of this verse, the phrase "those who are with him" refers to that great man who was with the Prophet on the 'Night of the Cave.' The order of succession in the caliphate is also apparent from this verse. "Those who are with him" means Abu Bakr, who accompanied the Prophet in the Cave of Thawr on the night of Hijra. The phrase "strong against unbelievers" means ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, who was very harsh with the unbelievers.

The phrase "compassionate to each other" refers to Uthman Ibn Affan, who was very kind. The phrase "on their faces are their marks, the traces of their prostration" refers to ‘Ali. It is clear that ‘Ali is the fourth Caliph, not the first, since Allah mentioned him in the fourth place.

Well-Wisher: I wonder how I should reply so that I may not be accused of self interest. No Qur'anic commentaries, including those of your great ulama’ have interpreted these words as you have. Had this verse been about the order of the caliphate, the first day after the death of the Prophet, when ‘Ali, the Bani Hashim, and the distinguished companions of the Prophet raised objections and refused to swear allegiance to the Caliph, baseless arguments would not have been put forward.

They could have given a silencing reply by citing this Holy verse there and then. Hence, it is clear that your interpretation is an afterthought. None of the great commentators of your sect, like Tabari, Imam Tha'labi, Fazil Nishapuri, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti, Qazi Baidhawi, Jarullah Zamakhshari, Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, or others have interpreted it thus. I fail to understand how you derive this meaning. Where and by whom was such a meaning given? This verse, from the literary and technical point of view, also goes against what you say.

Sheikh: I never expected that you would stand so boldly in opposition to the obvious meaning of such a verse. Of course if you have anything to say against this you may let us know so that the real position may be established.

Well-Wisher: Considering the grammatical construction of the verse, if we interpret its meaning as you have, it would either mean that Muhammad is Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman, and ‘Ali or that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman and ‘Ali are Muhammad! Even beginning students know that this sort of interpretation is grammatically inaccurate. Besides, if this verse referred to the four caliphs, there would have been the conjunction "and" to coordinate words to give your meaning, but it is not so.

All the commentators of your own sect say that this verse refers to all the believers. Moreover, the qualities enumerated in this verse apparently refer to one person only, who remained with the Prophet from the very beginning, and not to four persons. And if we say that one person was the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, it would be more appropriate according to common sense and hadith than naming any others.

Sheikh: It is strange that you claim that you do not indulge in misleading arguments, although your views are quite perverse. Allah says in the Holy Qur'an, "If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion:

'Grieve not, surely Allah is with us.' So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see..." (9:40)

First, this verse supports the previous verse and proves that the phrase "and those who are with him," refers to Abu Bakr who was with the Prophet in the cave on the night of the Hijra.

Second, the fact that he was with the Holy Prophet is in itself a great proof of Abu Bakr's merit and his superiority to the whole umma. The Prophet could foretell that Abu Bakr was his successor, and that the existence of the Caliph after him was necessary. Therefore, he realized that he should protect Abu Bakr as he would his own.

So, he took him with him so that Abu Bakr might not be caught by the enemy. Such treatment was not shown to any other Muslim. This clearly proves his right to the caliphate in preference to others.

Well-Wisher: If you would look at the verse more objectively, you would see that your conclusion is wrong.

Sheikh: Can you advance reasons against the conclusions that we have drawn?

Well-Wisher: I should like you to pass over this issue at the moment because speech breeds speech. Some biased people may interpret our comments with ill will. I do not wish to incite hatred. One might conclude that we wish to dishonor the caliphs, though the position of each individual is fixed, and it is not necessary to make useless interpretations.

Sheikh: You are being evasive. Be assured that reasonable argument does not breed contempt; it removes misunderstandings.

Well-Wisher: Since you have used the word "evasive," I am constrained to reply, so that you may know that I am not avoiding the issue. I wanted to maintain the propriety of our debate. I hope that you will not find fault with me. You made a thoughtless assertion that the Prophet knew that Abu Bakr would be his Caliph after him. Therefore, it was necessary for him to save his life, and so he took him with him.

Reply to your statement is simple. If Abu Bakr had been the only Caliph after the Prophet, such a view could be possible, but you believe in four caliphs. If this argument of yours is correct, and if it had been necessary for the Prophet to safeguard the life of the caliph, then the Prophet should have taken with him all four caliphs in Mecca. Why would he leave three others there, one of them in the perilous position of sleeping in the Prophet's bed, which was dangerous on a night when his enemies had gathered to murder him?

According to Tabari (Part III of his History), Abu Bakr was not aware of the Prophet's movement from Mecca. When he went to ‘Ali and asked him about the Prophet, he told him that the Prophet had gone to the cave. ‘Ali told him that if he had any business with him, he should run up to him. Abu Bakr ran and met the Prophet on the way.

So he accompanied him. This series of events indicates that the Prophet did not intend to take Abu Bakr with him. The latter accompanied him from the middle of the way without the Prophet's permission.

According to other reports, Abu Bakr was taken on the journey for fear of his causing a disturbance and giving information to the enemy. Your own ulama’ have admitted this fact. For instance, Sheikh Abu'l-Qasim Ibn Sabbagh, who is one of the well known ulama’ of your sect, writing in his ‘Al-Nur wa'l-Burhan’ about the life of the Prophet, narrates from Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, and he from Hasan Ibn Thabit Ansari, that he went to Mecca to perform the Umra before the emigration of the Prophet. He saw that the Quraish unbelievers were railing at the Prophet's companions.

The Prophet ordered ‘Ali to sleep in his bed, and, fearing that Abu Bakr would disclose this fact to the unbelievers, the Prophet took Abu Bakr with him.

Finally, it would have been better if you had pointed out what evidence there is in this verse to show the superiority of Abu Bakr or whether accompanying the Prophet on a journey is proof that one is entitled to the caliphate.

Sheikh: The evidence is there. First, the companionship of the Prophet and that Allah called him the Prophet's companion is in itself a qualification. Second, the Prophet himself said: "Verily, Allah is with us." Third, the sending down of tranquility upon him from Allah, as mentioned in this verse, is the most compelling proof of Abu Bakr's excellence. Therefore, all of these points taken together indicate his superiority to others regarding the caliphate.

Well-Wisher: No one hesitates to acknowledge the position of Abu Bakr, an elderly Muslim, one of the distinguished companions and the father of the wife of the Prophet. However, these reasons do not prove his superiority of the caliphate. If you try to prove your point with such statements before impartial men, you will be courting strong criticism. They will say that companionship with virtuous people is no proof of merit or superiority.

For example, we often see that bad people accompany good ones, and hosts of infidels accompany Muslims on journeys. Perhaps you have forgotten what the Holy Qur'an says about the Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), who said:

"O my two companions of the prison (I ask you): are many lords differing among themselves better, or Allah, the One, the Supreme?" (12:39)

Regarding this verse, commentators have said that when Joseph was taken to the prison, on the same day the King's cook and the wine bearer, both of whom were unbelievers, were also put into the prison with him. For five years these three men (both believers and unbelievers) lived together as companions. When preaching to them Joseph, called them his companions.

Was this companionship of the Prophet ever made grounds for regarding the two infidels as virtuous or dignified? Did their companionship with the Prophet effect a change in their faith? The writings of the commentators and historians tell us that after five years of companionship, they were separated from each other in the same condition.

Another verse of the Qur'an states:

"His companion said to him while disputing with him: 'Do you disbelieve in Him who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?'" (18:37)

Commentators agree that this verse refers to two brothers: one was a believer, whose name was Yahuda. The other was an unbeliever whose name was Bara'tus. This fact has also been reported in the ‘Tafsir al-Kabir’ by Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, who is one of your ulama’.

These two talked to each other, the details of which cannot be given here. Allah has, however, called both of them (believer and unbeliever) "companions." Did the unbeliever derive benefit from his companionship with the believer? Obviously not. Thus, companionship alone is no basis for claiming one's excellence. There are many examples in support of this view.

You also said that since the Prophet said to Abu Bakr, "Allah is with us," that this is proof of Abu Bakr's excellence and his right to the caliphate! You might reconsider your views. People might ask, for example, "Does Allah remain with the believers and saints only, and not with the unbelievers?" Do you know any place where Allah does not exist? Isn't Allah with everyone? Suppose a believer and an unbeliever are together in a congregation.

The Qur'an says:

"See you not that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth? Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three (persons) but He is fourth of them, nor (between) five, but He is the sixth, nor less than that, nor more but He is with them wheresoever they may be." (58:7)

According to this verse and according to common sense, Allah is with everyone.

Sheikh: The expression "Allah is with us" meant that they were Allah's dearly loved ones because they traveled in the way of Allah for the purpose of preserving His religion. Allah's blessings were with them.

Well-Wisher: But surely this expression does not prove that one possesses an eternal blessing. Allah Almighty looks at people's deeds. It has often happened that at one time, people performed good deeds and were recipients of mercy from Allah.

Later they disobeyed Allah and were subjected to divine wrath. Satan, as you know, worshiped Allah for thousands of years and received kindness from Him. However, as soon as he disobeyed His Command, he was damned.

The Holy Qur'an says:

"He said: 'Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away. And surely upon you is a curse until the Day of Judgement.'" (15:34-35)

Excuse me, there is no harm in citing examples. My purpose is to clarify the point. History contains many examples of those who were close to Allah but who, after being tested, were cursed. Bal'am Ibn Ba'ur, for example, a contemporary of Moses, became so close to Allah that Allah revealed to him the ‘Ism al-A'zam’ (the greatest name of Allah, through which anything sought for is immediately granted by Allah).

He invoked Allah by means of the ‘Ism al-A'zam’ and caused Moses to suffer in the valley of Tia! But at the time of trial, Bal'am was overpowered by his love for the material world. He followed Satan and was condemned.

Commentators have given detailed accounts of this event. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in his Commentary, Part IV, page 463, has reported this matter from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, and Mujahid. Allah in the Holy Qur'an tells us:

"And recite to them the narrative of him to whom We give Our revelations, but he withdraws himself from them; so Satan overtakes him, and he is of those who go astray." (7:175)

Or consider the case of Barsisa Abid, who originally worshipped Allah so much that he became ‘Mustajabu'd-da'wa’ (one whose invocations are granted). However, when the time of trial came, he failed. Misled by Satan, he committed fornication with a girl, was sent to the gallows, and died an unbeliever. The Holy Qur'an refers to him in these words:

"Like Satan when he says to man: 'Disbelieve,' but when he disbelieves, he says; 'I am surely quit of you; surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds.' Therefore, the end of both of them is that they are both in the fire to abide therein, and that is the reward of the unjust." (59:16-17)

So if man has done good deeds at one time, it does not follow that his end will be good. It is for this reason that we are instructed to say in our invocation: "Let all our actions end in good."

Sheikh: I really didn't expect an honorable man like you to cite the examples of Satan, Bal'am al-Ba'ur, and Barsisa.

Well-Wisher: Excuse me, I have already stated that there is no harm in citing examples. In fact, we must cite them in learned debates to prove facts. Let Allah be my witness: I never intended to defame anyone by citing these examples. My purpose is to prove my point.

Well-Wisher: You have misunderstood it. The pronoun used after ‘Sakina’ (peace) refers to the Prophet. Peace was sent to him and not to Abu Bakr, as is evident from the later sentence in which Allah says:

"...and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see." (9:40)

The fact is that the hosts of unseen angels were to aid the Prophet, not Abu Bakr.

Sheikh: I admit that the divine help was for the Prophet, but Abu Bakr, being in company of the Prophet, was not without blessings.

Well-Wisher: If the bestowal of divine blessings referred to two people, Arabic grammar would require that pronouns be used designating two people in all the phrases of this verse. But the pronouns refer to one person, the Prophet, and Allah's blessings were for him. If through him the bestowal had been intended for others as well, their names would have been mentioned. Hence, the sending down of peace in this verse is for the Prophet alone.

Sheikh: The Prophet of Allah was independent of the divine bestowal of peace. He did not need it because he was assured of divine blessings. Hence, the bestowal of peace was for Abu Bakr.

Well-Wisher: On what grounds do you say that the Prophet was independent of divine blessings? No person - Prophet, Imam, or saint - is independent of divine blessings. Perhaps you have forgotten what the Holy Qur'an says about the incident of Hunain. "Then Allah sent down His tranquility upon His Apostle and upon the believers." The same thing has been said in chapter 48 (Fath) verse 26, of the Holy Qur'an. The believers are included after the Prophet in this verse, just as in the "verse of the cave."

If Abu Bakr had been a believer who deserved the bestowal of peace, either the pronoun for two persons would have been used, or his name would have been mentioned separately. This matter is so clear that your own ulama’ admit that the pronoun connected with peace does not refer to Abu Bakr.

You might consult ‘Naqzu'l-Uthmaniyya’, compiled by Sheikh Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Iskafi, who is one of the prominent ulama’ and Sheikhs of the ‘Mu'tazilite’s. That scholar completely refutes the absurdities of Abu Uthman Jahiz. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid also recorded some of those replies in his ‘Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume III, pages 253-281.

In addition, there is a phrase in this verse, the implication of which is contrary to your point. The Prophet said to Abu Bakr: "Fear you not." The phrase indicates that Abu Bakr was frightened. Was this fear praiseworthy or not?

If it was, the Prophet would not prohibit anyone from doing a good deed. A vicegerent of Allah possesses certain qualities. The most important of them, as pointed out in the Holy Qur'an, is that he never fears the vicissitudes of life. He exercises patience and fortitude. The Holy Qur'an says:

"Now surely the friends of Allah - they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."(10:62)

Sixth Session, Tuesday night, 28th Rajab 1345 A.H.

Mr. Ghulam Imamain, a respected Sunni merchant, came to the meeting place before sunset. He mentioned the reason for his coming. He said that he and some others were greatly influenced by the Well-Wisher's remarks. He said that he heard facts he had never heard before. He and some other Sunnis had an unpleasant discussion with their ulama’, who could not refute Well-Wisher's arguments but who stuck stubbornly to their position. When the time for Maghrib prayers came, Mr. Ghulam Imamain offered both Maghrib and Isha' prayers led by Well-Wisher. When the others arrived, the discussion began with a comment by Nawab Sahib.

Nawab: Please continue last night's discourse. The interpretation of the verse was incomplete.

Well-Wisher: (Looking toward the Sunni ulama’.) Provided you so allow.

Hafiz: (A bit angrily) No harm. If something remains to be said, we are prepared to listen.

Well-Wisher: Last night I proved, from the grammatical point of view, that the statement of some commentators that this verse refers to the manner of determining the caliphate was unacceptable. Now I will argue from another point of view.

Sheikh Abdu's-Salam Sahib said last night that there are four qualities mentioned in this verse. These qualities, he said, indicate that the verse was revealed in reference to the first four caliphs and that the verse indicates the order of the caliphate. My response to this argument is, first, reliable commentators have never made such a statement about the significance of this verse.

Second, you all know that when a quality attributed to a person corresponds precisely with his characteristics, only then it worth considering. If we consider the facts objectively, we find that it is only ‘Ali who had possessed the attributes described in this verse. These qualities in no way correspond with those named by Sheikh Sahib.

Hafiz: Weren't all those verses you have already narrated about ‘Ali sufficient? Do you now wish through your rhetorical cleverness to prove that this Holy verse was also revealed in praise of ‘Ali? If so, let us know how it does not fit in with the caliphate of the first four caliphs.

Well-Wisher: I haven't falsely attributed verses of the Holy Qur'an in praise of ‘Ali. You are confused. Can you ignore the fact that well known commentaries and reliable books written by your own ulama’ mentioned many verses of the Holy Qur'an to be in praise of ‘Ali? How can you regard it as being peculiar to me? Were Hafiz Abu Na'im Ispahani, the author of "Ma Nazala mina'l-Qur'an Fi ‘Ali," and Hafiz Abu Bakr Shirazi, the author of "Nuzulu'l-Qur'an Fi ‘Ali," Shi’as?

Were the great commentators, like Imam Tha'labi, Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, Tabari, Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, and other high-ranking ulama’, like Ibn Kathir, Muslim, Hakim, Tirmidhi, Nisa'i, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and even the intolerant Ibn Hajar, who collected in his ‘Sawa'iq’ the verses of the Holy Qur'an revealed in praise of ‘Ali, Shi’as?

Some of the ulama’, like Tabari, and Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in the beginning of his Part 62, narrating on the authority of Ibn Abbas, and Muhaddith of Syria in his ‘Ta'rikh al-Kabir’, and others have recorded as many as 300 hundred verses of the Holy Qur'an in praise of ‘Ali.

Were these men Shi’as or did they belong to your great ulama’? We do not need to falsely attribute a verse of the Holy Qur'an for proving the rank of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali. His enemies (Amawis, Nawasib, and Khawarij) suppress his virtues, and his friends hesitate to report his excellence for fear of consequences. Still, books are full of his merits, and they cast light on all aspects of his attainment. So far as this verse is concerned, I have not indulged in "rhetorical cleverness." I have revealed the truth, arguing from your own books.

You have observed so far that I have not argued from the reports of Shi’as authors. Even if Shi’as books are left aside, I will prove ‘Ali's unique superiority. What I have said regarding this verse agrees with the views of your own ulama’.

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, quoted the "Hadith of Similarity" in his ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’, Chapter 23, from the Prophet to the effect that ‘Ali was similar to the prophets. He says that the reason ‘Ali was called similar to Noah in wisdom was that ‘Ali was vehement against the unbelievers and kind to the believers.

Allah has mentioned these attributes in the Holy Qur'an. ‘Ali, who was always with the Prophet, was "vehement against the infidels and compassionate to the believers." And supposing, as Sheikh Sahib says, that the phrase "and those who are with him" refers to Abu Bakr because he remained for a few days with the Prophet in the cave. Can such a man equal him who remained with the Holy Prophet from childhood and received instruction from him?

Moreover, on the crucial occasion of the declaration of his prophethood, no one supported Muhammad except ‘Ali. Your eminent ulama’, like Bukhari and Muslim, in their ‘Sahihain, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his ‘Musnad’, and many others, such as Ibn Abdi'l-Birr in ‘Isti'ab’, Volume III, page 32, Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in ‘Khasa'isu'l-Alawi’, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkira’, page 63, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 12, on the authority of Tirmidhi and Muslim, Muhammad ibn Talha Shafi'i in ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, sub-chapter I, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in ‘Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume III, p. 258,

Tirmidhi in ‘Jam' al-Tirmidhi’, Volume II, page 314, Hamwaini in ‘Fara'id’, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, and even the fanatical Ibn Hajar in ‘Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa’, and other prominent scholars have, with slight variation of words, related from Anas Ibn Malik and others that "the Holy Prophet was ordained Prophet of Allah on Monday, and ‘Ali, declared his faith in him on Tuesday."

It is also narrated that "The prophethood of Allah was declared on Monday, and ‘Ali offered prayers with the Holy Prophet on Tuesday." And, again, "‘Ali was the first man who declared his faith in the Prophet." Also Tabari, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Tirmidhi, and others narrate from Ibn Abbas that "‘Ali was the first to offer prayers."

I ask you to consider what your own learned theologian, Nuru'd-din Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in his ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’, Chapter "Tarbiatu'n-Nabi," page 16, and Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, Chapter 1, page 11, and others have reported.

During a famine in Mecca, the Prophet told his uncle, Abbas, that the latter's brother, Abu Talib, had too many children, and that his means of livelihood were narrow. Muhammad recommended that each of them ask Abu Talib for one child to support so that the heavy burden on him would be reduced. Abbas agreed.

They went to Abu Talib with their offer, and he accepted. Abbas took Ja'far al-Tayyar under his guardianship, and the Prophet took ‘Ali. Maliki continues, "‘Ali remained continuously with the Holy Prophet until the latter was formally declared the Prophet of Allah."

‘Ali declared his belief in him, and followed him as a prophet of Allah when ‘Ali was only thirteen. He was the first male to accept Islam. The Prophet's wife Khadija was the only person to accept the Prophet before ‘Ali.

In the same chapter, Maliki reports that Ibn Abbas, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Zaid Ibn Arqam, Muhammad Ibn Munkadar, and Rabi'atu'l-Mara'i said that the first person after Khadija who believed in the Prophet was ‘Ali. He says that ‘Ali referred to this fact, which has been narrated by your ulama’.

He said: "Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah, is my brother and son of my uncle; Hamza, the chief of the martyrs, is my uncle; Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet, is my wife; and his daughter's two sons are my sons by Fatima. Who of you has shared such distinction as I have?

I was the foremost in accepting Islam when I was only a child. The Prophet declared on the day of ‘Ghadir al-Khum’ that it was obligatory to accept me as your guide. (Then he said three times) 'Woe be to him who faces Allah tomorrow (on the Day of Judgement), if he has subjected me to cruelty.'"

Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his ‘Matalibu's-Su'ul’, Part 1, Chapter 1, page 11, and many others of your learned men, have reported that these statements were in reply to Mu'awiya's letter, to ‘Ali, in which the former had boasted that his father was the chief of his tribe during the "time of ignorance," and that in Islam he (Mu'awiya) was the King.

Mu'awiya also said that he was the "maternal uncle of the faithful," the "writer of the Wahi" (revelations), and a man of virtuous merits." After reading the letter, ‘Ali said: "A man of his character - the son of the woman who chewed livers - boasts before me! (in reference to Mu'awiya's mother, Hind, who, after the Battle of Uhud, in a fit of rage, ripped open the dead body of Hamza, tore out his liver, and chewed it). Mu'awiya, even though he was bitterly opposed to ‘Ali, could not deny these merits.

Moreover, Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Haskani, one of your learned ulama’, narrates from Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Auf, regarding the above verse of the ten Quraish who accepted Islam, that ‘Ali was the foremost among them. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Khatib Khawarizmi, and Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi narrate from Anas ibn Malik that the Prophet said: "The angels blessed me and ‘Ali for seven years, for during that time no voice proclaimed the oneness of Allah except mine and ‘Ali's." Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, in ‘Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume I, pages 373-5, recorded several hadith narrated through your scholars to the effect that ‘Ali was the foremost of all others in the matter of Islam.

After recording the various versions, and narrations he concludes: "So the sum total of what we have stated is that ‘Ali is the first of all men regarding Islam. The view contrary to it is rare, and not worth our attention."

Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i, author of one of the six books of authentic hadith, has recorded in ‘Khasa'isu'l-Alawi’ the first six hadith on this topic and has confirmed that the foremost person in Islam, and the first to offer prayers with the Prophet was ‘Ali.

In addition, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, Chapter 12, recorded 31 hadith from Tirmidhi, Hamwaini, Ibn Maja, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim, Imam Tha'labi, Ibn Maghazili, Abu'l-Muwayyid Khawarizmi, and Dailami, the conclusion of which is that ‘Ali was the first in the entire Muslim community to have accepted Islam.

Even the intolerant Ibn Hajar Makki has in ‘Sawa'iq Muhriqa’, Chapter 2, recorded hadith on the same issue, some of which have been accepted by Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’.

Further, in ‘Yanabiu'l-Mawadda’, towards the close of chapter 12, he related from Ibn Zubair, Makki and he from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, a hadith about ‘Ali's merits, which I would like to present here with your permission in order to conclude my argument.

The Prophet said: "Allah Almighty chose me as a Prophet and revealed sacred scriptures to me. I said to Him, 'O Allah, My master, You sent Moses to Pharaoh, Moses asked you to make his brother, Aaron, his vizier to strengthen his hand, so that his words might be witnessed. Now I ask you, O Allah, that you appoint for me from among my family a vizier who may strengthen my hand. Make ‘Ali my vizier and brother, infuse gallantry into his heart, and give him power over the enemy. ‘Ali was the first person to believe in me and to witness my prophethood and the first person to declare the oneness of Allah along with me.' Afterward I continued to pray to Allah.

Therefore, ‘Ali is the chief of the successors. To follow him is a blessing; to die in obedience to him is martyrdom. His name appears in the Torah along with my name; his wife, the most truthful, is my daughter; his two sons, who are the chiefs of the Youth of Paradise, are my sons.

After them all the Imams are vicegerents of Allah over His creation after the prophets; and they are the doors of knowledge among my people. He who follows them is rescued from Hellfire; he who follows them is guided to the right path; he who is endowed by Allah with love for them will surely be sent to Paradise. So, enlightened people, take heed."

I could quote similar hadith all night, all of which have been recorded by your own scholars. But I think this is enough. ‘Ali alone associated with the Holy Prophet from childhood, and therefore it is fitting that we consider him the person referred to in the words "those who are with him," and not the one who accompanied the Prophet on a few days' journey.

Hafiz: You have proven your point, and no one has ever denied that ‘Ali was foremost in accepting Islam. But this fact does not qualify him as pre-eminent in comparison with other companions. True, the high caliphs professed faith in Islam years after ‘Ali, but their faith was different from his and better.

The reason is that ‘Ali was only a child, and these people were mature. Obviously, the faith of older, wise men was superior to that of a child. In addition, ‘Ali's faith was only blind following, and the faith of these people was based on reason.

Faith acquired by reason is better than blind faith. Since a child, who is not under a religious obligation to perform duties, does not profess faith except by blind following, so ‘Ali, who was only a child of thirteen, professed his faith only through blind following.

Well-Wisher: Such talk is really surprising coming from a learned man like you. I wonder how to refute such an argument. If I were to say that you adopt such a position out of malice, it would be against my disposition to attribute such a motive to a learned man. Let me put a question to you: was ‘Ali's acceptance of Islam based on his personal wish or on the invitation of the Prophet?

Hafiz: Why do you take such a severe view of the way we talk since, when we have doubts, we must discuss them. In reply to your question, I admit that ‘Ali accepted Islam at the invitation of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: When the Prophet invited ‘Ali to accept Islam, did the former know a child is not bound by religious commitments? If you say that he did not know it, you attribute ignorance to him, and if he did know it and invited ‘Ali anyway, then his action was absurd. Obviously, to attribute absurdity to the Prophet is infidelity since a prophet is infallible. Allah says about him in the Holy Qur'an:

"Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)

The Prophet considered ‘Ali a person worthy to be invited to accept Islam. Apart from this, youth does not necessarily preclude wisdom. Maturity is taken into consideration concerning discharge of religious obligations, but not for matters connected with wisdom. Faith is concerned with matters relating to wisdom and not religious laws. So ‘Ali's faith during childhood is a virtue for him just as Allah tells us in the Holy Qur'an about Jesus in these words:

"He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet." (19:30)

Also in this chapter He says about Prophet Yahya:

"...and We granted him wisdom while yet a child." (19:12)

Sayyid ‘Ali Humairi Yamani, (died 179 A.H.), points to the same fact in his couplets. He says: "Just as Yahya reached the rank of prophethood in his childhood, ‘Ali, who was the successor of the Prophet and the father of his sons, was also ordained Vicegerent of Allah and guardian of the people while only a child."

Virtue and dignity bestowed by Allah do not depend on age. Wisdom and intelligence depend upon an inborn tendency. I am surprised by your comment since such arguments were made by the Nasibis and Kharijis at the instigation of the Umayyads. They denigrated ‘Ali's faith as being mere blind adherence to what he was taught.

Even your own scholars have acknowledged ‘Ali's merit in this respect. Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i, Ibn Sabbagh Maliki, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid and others have quoted ‘Ali's couplets. In one of his couplets he says: "I was first and foremost among you in embracing Islam when I was only a small child."

If ‘Ali's faith at such a tender age had not been meritorious, the Prophet would not have characterized it as such. Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 55, page 202, narrates from Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Shafi'i, quoting from the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, who said, "Abu Bakr, Abu Ubaida Jarra, and a group of people were present in the company of the Prophet of Allah when he patted ‘Ali on the shoulder and said: 'O ‘Ali! You are the first and foremost among all believers and Muslims in embracing Islam. You are to me as Aaron was to Moses.'"

Also Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal narrates from Ibn Abbas, who said that he, Abu Bakr, Abu Ubaida Ibn Jarra, and others were with the Prophet when he put his hand on ‘Ali's shoulder and said: "You are foremost in faith in Islam among all the Muslims, and you are to me as Aaron was to Moses, O ‘Ali! He who thinks he is my friend while he is your enemy is a liar."

Ibn Sabbagh Maliki records a similar hadith in ‘Fusulu'l-Muhimma’, p. 125, from ‘Khasa'isu'l-Alawi’ as a narration of Abdullah ibn Abbas, and Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i reports in ‘Khasa'isu'l-Alawi’ that he said: "I have heard ‘Umar ibn Khattab saying 'Mention ‘Ali's name with respect because I have heard the Prophet saying that ‘Ali has three qualities. I (‘Umar) wished that I had only one of them because each of those qualities is dearer to me than anything in this world.'"

Ibn Sabbagh has narrated the following in addition to what others have recorded. The Holy Prophet said about ‘Ali, "He who loves you loves me, and he who loves me, Allah loves him, and whomever Allah loves, He brings to Paradise. But he who is hostile to you is hostile to me, and he who is hostile to me, Allah is hostile to him and condemns him to Hell."

‘Ali's declaring himself a Muslim even while he was still a boy establishes the excellence of his wisdom and merit, which no other Muslim can attain. Tabari in his ‘Ta'rikh’ quotes from Muhammad Ibn Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqqas, who said: "I asked my father whether Abu Bakr was the first of the Muslims.

He said, 'No, more than fifty people embraced Islam before Abu Bakr; but he was superior to us as a Muslim.'" He also writes that ‘Umar Ibn Khattab embraced Islam after forty-five men and twenty-one women. "As for the foremost one in the matter of Islam and faith, it was ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib."

Besides the fact that ‘Ali was foremost in embracing Islam, he possessed another merit, peculiar to him, and more important than his other merits: ‘Ali's Islam derived from his nature, while that of others occurred only after previous unbelief. Unlike other Muslims and companions of the Prophet, ‘Ali was never an unbeliever.

Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his ‘Ma Nazalu'l-Qur'an Fi ‘Ali’, and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’ narrate that Ibn Abbas said, "I swear by Allah that there was no one who had not worshipped idols before embracing Islam except ‘Ali. He accepted Islam without having ever worshipped the idols."

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his ‘Kifayatu't-Talib’, Chapter 24, quotes the Prophet as saying, "Those who took the lead in accepting faith in the oneness of Allah among the followers of the Prophets were three people who were never polytheists: ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the man in the Sura Ya Sin, and the believer of the people of Pharaoh. The Truthful Ones are Habib al-Najjar, among the descendants of Ya Sin, Ezekiel among the descendants of Pharaoh, and ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, who excelled all of them."

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, ‘Mawadda 7’, Khatib Khawarizmi in ‘Manaqib’, and Imam Tha'labi in his Tafsir narrate from the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab: "I bear witness that I heard the Prophet say, 'If the seven heavens were put in one balance and ‘Ali's faith in the other, ‘Ali's faith would surely outweigh the other.'"

The same point has been included in couplets composed by Sufyan ibn Mus'ab ibn Kufi as follows: "By Allah, I bear witness that the Prophet said to us: 'It should not remain unknown to anyone that if the faith of all those living on the earth were placed in one scale of the balance and that of ‘Ali in the other scale, ‘Ali's faith would outweigh the other.'"

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i has recorded many hadith in his ‘Mawaddatu'l-Qurba’, which supported ‘Ali's excellence. In the seventh ‘Mawadda’ he quotes from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said, "The best of men of all the worlds in my period is ‘Ali."

Most of your fair-minded ulama’ have accepted the superiority of ‘Ali. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his ‘Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume 111, page 40, says that Abu Ja'far Iskafi, the chief of the ‘Mu'tazilite’ sect, declared that Bashr Ibn Mu'tamar, Abu Musa, Ja'far Ibn Mubashshir, and other ulama’ of Baghdad believed that, "The most excellent person among all Muslims was ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, and after him his son Hasan, then his son Husain, after him Hamza, and after him Ja'far Ibn Abi Talib." He goes on to say that his master Abu Abdullah Basri, Sheikh Abu'l-Qasim Balkhi, and Sheikh Abu'l-Hasan Khayyat had the same belief as Abu Ja'far Iskafi regarding the superiority of ‘Ali.

He explains the faith of the Mu'tazilite sect saying: "The best of the men after the Prophet of Allah, is the successor of the Prophet, the husband of Fatima, ‘Ali; after him, his two sons, Hasan and Husain; after them, Hamza, and after him Ja'far (Tayyar).

Sheikh: If you knew the statements of the ulama’ in support of the excellence of Abu Bakr, you would not have made such remarks.

Well-Wisher: All the reliable Sunni ulama’ have acknowledged the superiority of ‘Ali. For instance, you may refer Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali's ‘Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume 111, page 264, in which the same statement has been quoted from Jahiz that Abu Bakr's faith was superior to that of ‘Ali. However, Abu Ja'far Askafi, one of the eminent ulama’ of the Mu'tazilite sect, rejected this claim, saying that ‘Ali's faith was superior to Abu Bakr's and all other companions.

Abu Ja'far said, "We do not deny the excellence of the companions, but certainly we do not consider any of them superior to ‘Ali." ‘Ali was of such an exalted rank that to mention his name along with other companions is unbecoming.

In fact, the virtues of the companions cannot be compared with the sublime merits of ‘Ali. Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani narrates in his Mawadda VII from Ahmad Ibn Muhammadu'l-Karzi Baghdadi, who said that he heard from Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who asked his father Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about the rank of the companions of the Prophet.

He named Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman and stopped. Abdullah then asked his father, "Where is the name of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib?" His father replied, "He belongs to the Holy descendants of the Prophet. We cannot mention his name (being of such prominence) along with those people."

We see in the Holy Qur'an that in the verse of Mubahala ‘Ali is referred to as the 'self' of the Holy Prophet. There is a hadith in support of this view, which is recorded in the same Mawadda VII, narrated from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar Ibn Khattab.

He said that one day while counting the names of the companions, he named Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman. A man said, "O Abu Abdu'r-Rahman! Why did you omit the name of ‘Ali?" He replied: "‘Ali is one of the descendants of the Prophet. He cannot be included with anyone else. He is in the same category as the Prophet of Allah."

Let me relate another hadith from the same Mawadda. It is narrated from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari that one day in the presence of Muhajirs (Meccan emigrants living in Medina) and Ansars ("helpers" of Medina who received the Muslim emigrants into their community), that the Prophet said to ‘Ali, "O ‘Ali! If a man offers complete prayers to Allah, and then doubts that you and your family are superior to all other beings, his abode shall be Hell."

(After hearing this hadith, all those present, particularly Mr. Hafiz, showed repentance, lest they should be among the doubtful ones). I have referred to only a few hadith. Your choice seems to be to reject all these authentic hadith, which are recorded in your own books, or to acknowledge that ‘Ali's faith was superior to that of all the companions, including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

I also ask you to consider the hadith (acknowledged by both sects) in which the Holy Prophet said on the occasion of ‘Ghazawa al-Ahzab’ (also known as the Battle of the Trench), when ‘Ali killed Amru Ibn Abd al-Wudd with one stroke of his sword: "One stroke of ‘Ali in the Battle of Khandaq (the Trench) has earned more merit for him than the reward for good deeds of the whole community (jinn and men) until the Day of Judgement." If only one stroke of his sword was better in merit than the prayers of jinn and human beings combined, certainly his preeminence cannot be questioned by anyone except malicious fanatics.

Had there been no other proof of ‘Ali's superiority to all the companions and to humanity at large, the verse of Mubahala is sufficient to prove his excellence. It refers to ‘Ali as the 'self' of the Prophet. The Holy Prophet was admittedly superior to all of humanity from beginning to end.

Hence, the word "anfusana" (ourselves) in the verse referring to ‘Ali proves that he was also superior to all of humanity from beginning to end. Perhaps now you will admit that in the phrase "And those who are with him," the reference is to ‘Ali. He was with the Prophet before anyone else from the beginning of Islam.

As to why ‘Ali did not accompany the Prophet on the night of his migration from Mecca, it is clear that the Prophet entrusted ‘Ali with more important duties. No one was as trustworthy as ‘Ali. He was left behind to return to its owners the property entrusted to the Prophet. (‘Ali's second responsibility was to send members of the Prophet's family and other Muslims to Medina. And even though ‘Ali was not with the Prophet in the cave that night, he performed a more important duty as he lay in the Prophet's bed.)

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in ‘Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha’, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in ‘Tadhkira’, and others of your prominent ‘ulama’, report that when the Holy Prophet intended, by divine command, to leave Mecca for Medina, he asked ‘Ali to wear his (the Prophet's) green cover sheet and to sleep in his bed. Accordingly, ‘Ali slept in the Prophet's place.

Then Allah Almighty told the angels Gabriel and Michael that He had made them brothers, and that one of them would live longer than the other. He asked them which was prepared to give his brother his excess life, the extent of which neither of them knew. They asked Him whether the choice was obligatory. They were told it was not obligatory.

Neither of them chose to part with his excess life. Then followed the divine words: "I have created brotherhood between my vicegerent ‘Ali and my Prophet Muhammad. ‘Ali has offered to sacrifice his life for the sake of the Prophet's life. By sleeping in the Prophet's bed, he is protecting the Prophet's life. Now both of you are ordered to go to the earth and save him from the enemy's evil designs."

Accordingly, both of them came to the earth. Gabriel sat at ‘Ali's head and Michael at his feet. Gabriel said, "Congratulations, O son of Abu Talib! in whom Allah Almighty takes pride in the presence of His angels." After this, the following verse was revealed to the Prophet:

"And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of God; and Allah is full of kindness to (His) servants." (2:207)

Now I entreat you, respected gentlemen, to consider this verse carefully when you return home tonight and to draw your own conclusion. Does superiority rightly belong to him who remained with the Prophet on a few days journey, expressing fear and grief, or to him who risked his life the same night valiantly and joyfully, for the safety of the Holy Prophet. Imam Ja'far Askafi, one of the great ulama’ and chiefs of the Mu'tazilites, proves, as recorded in Abi'l-Hadid's Commentary on ‘Nahju'l-Balagha’, Volume III, page 269-281) that ‘Ali's sleeping in the Prophet's bed was superior to the short stay of Abu Bakr with the Holy Prophet.

He says: "The Muslim ulama’ unanimously hold that, in reality, ‘Ali's excellence on this night is so exalted that no man could reach it except Ishaq (Isaac) and Ibrahim (Abraham) when they were prepared to sacrifice their lives in obedience to Allah's will." (Most commentators, ulama’, and historians believe that it was Isma'il who offered himself for sacrifice and not Ishaq.)

On page 271 of ‘Sharhe-Nahju'l-Balagha’ the statement of Abu Ja'far Askafi in reply to Abu Uthman Jahiz Nasibi is recorded. He says: "I have already proved earlier that ‘Ali's sleeping in the Holy Prophet's bed on the night of the migration was superior to Abu Bakr's remaining in the company of the Prophet in the cave. In order to emphasize my point, I will prove it from two other points of view. First, the Prophet of Allah having old and close associations with ‘Ali, loved him dearly. Therefore, he felt the loss of love when they separated.

On the other hand, Abu Bakr enjoyed the privilege of going with the Prophet. Since ‘Ali was suffering the pangs of separation, his recompense increased because the greater the agony in service, the greater is the recompense for it.

Secondly, since Abu Bakr intended to leave Mecca, and had even left it once alone, his situation as a citizen there became increasingly difficult. So when he left Mecca along with the Prophet, his longing to depart was fulfilled. Hence, no such moral excellence is due to him as to ‘Ali, who suffered utmost anguish in risking his life before the drawn swords of the enemy."

Ibn Sab'a Maghribi says in his ‘Shifa'u's-Sudur’ about the bravery of ‘Ali: "There is complete unanimity among the Arab ulama’ that on the night of Hijra (migration), ‘Ali's sleeping in the Prophet's bed was superior to going out with him. ‘Ali made himself the Prophet's representative and risked his life for the Prophet's sake. This point is so clear that no one has ever denied it except those afflicted with insanity or fanaticism."

I stop here and come to my main point. You said that the Qur'anic phrase:

"Vehement against the infidels" (48:29)

refers to the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab. But this claim cannot be accepted merely because you say so. We must determine whether or not this attribute is characteristic of him or not. If it is, I am willing to accept it. Obviously vehemence can be displayed in two ways: in religious debates in which, through the force of argumentation, the ulama’ of the opposite side are silenced. Second, it can be shown on the battlefield.

So far as learned discussions are concerned, there is not a single instance in history when ‘Umar showed any vehemence. At any rate, I have not seen any historical records indicating that ‘Umar displayed vehemence in learned discussion. I shall be obliged to you if you can cite any such instance.

In fact, your own ulama’ have agreed that it was ‘Ali who solved difficult legal and religious problems during the period of the first three Caliphs. Although the Umayyads and the blind followers of Abu Bakr fabricated innumerable hadith on their behalf, they could not hide the fact that when men of other faiths came to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or Uthman, to solve difficult problems, the Caliphs referred the problems to ‘Ali. ‘Ali gave them such convincing replies that many non-Muslims embraced Islam.

The fact that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman acknowledged ‘Ali's superiority is sufficient to prove my point. Your own scholars have written that Caliph Abu Bakr said, "Remove me, remove me, since I am not better than you so long as ‘Ali is in your midst."

At least seventy times Caliph ‘Umar admitted: "If ‘Ali had not been there, ‘Umar would have been ruined." Most of the circumstances involving danger have been mentioned in the books, but I don't want to dwell on this point. There may be more important topics to discuss.

Nawab: Which topics could be more important than this? Are these matters mentioned in our books? If they are, will you please let us know?

Well-Wisher: The just ulama’ of your sect agree that ‘Umar often admitted that ‘Ali came to his rescue.

The great theologian, Ganji Shafi'i, in Chapter 57, of his Kifayatu't-Talib Fi Manaqib ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, after narrating some authentic hadith, reports from Hudhaifa Ibn Yaman that "one day ‘Umar met him and asked him: 'What was your condition when you awoke in the morning?'

Hudhaifa said, 'I rose in the morning hating the Truth, liking mischief, bearing witness to the thing unseen; learning by heart the uncreated, reciting salutations without being in the state of ritual purity, and knowing that, what is for me on the earth is not for Allah in the Sky.'

‘Umar was infuriated by these remarks and intended to punish Hudhaifa when ‘Ali came in. He noticed the signs of rage on ‘Umar's face and asked why he was so angry. ‘Umar told him, and ‘Ali said: 'There is nothing serious about this remark: What Hudhaifa said was correct. Truth means death, which he detests; mischief means wealth and children, which he likes; and when he says he bears witness to what he has not seen, this means that he testifies to the oneness of Allah, death, the Day of Judgement, Paradise, Hell, the bridge over it named Sira, none of which he has seen.

When he says he learns by heart what is uncreated, this refers to the Holy Qur'an; when he says that he recites salutations without ablution, this refers to reciting salutations on the Prophet of Allah, which is permissible without ablution; when he says he has for himself on earth what is not for Allah in the sky, this refers to his wife, as He has no wife or children.' ‘Umar then said, ‘Umar would have been lost had ‘Ali not arrived.'"

Ganji Shafi'i says that ‘Umar's statement is verified according to reports of most of the narrators of hadith. The author of Manaqib says that Caliph ‘Umar repeatedly said: "O Abu'l-Hasan! (‘Ali). I would not be a part of a community without you." He also said: "Women are unable to give birth to a child like ‘Ali."

Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 14, narrating from Tirmidhi, record a detailed report from Ibn Abbas at the end of which he says: "The companions of the Prophet used to seek religious judgments from ‘Ali, and they accepted his decisions. Thus, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab said on various occasions, 'If it were not for ‘Ali, ‘Umar would have been ruined."

In religious matters and learned discussions ‘Umar showed no vehemence. On the contrary, he admitted his own inability and acknowledged ‘Ali as his refuge. Even Ibn Hajar Makki in Chapter III of Sawa'iq Muhriqa, reporting from Ibn Sa'd, quotes ‘Umar as saying, "I seek Allah's help in deciding those difficult problems for which Abu-l-Hasan (‘Ali) is not available."

As for ‘Umar's vehemence on the battlefield, history recorded no instance of it. On the contrary, historians of both sects relate that whenever ‘Umar encountered a powerful enemy, he took to his heels. Consequently, other Muslims also fled, and the Muslim army was often defeated.

Hafiz: You have gradually increased the unkindness. You have insulted Caliph ‘Umar, who was the pride of the Muslims and in whose age the Muslims achieved great victories. Because of ‘Umar, Muslim armies won their battles. You call him a coward and say that he ran away from the battlefield and that the defeat of the Muslim army was due to him! Is it proper for a man of your caliber to defame Caliph ‘Umar?

Well-Wisher: I'm afraid you are mistaken. Though you have been with me for many nights, you have not understood me. Perhaps you think that it is due to enmity that I criticize or praise men. It is not. There is a great liability in religious debates, which has been a source of antagonism among Muslims for centuries. Such debates often excite malicious tendencies, which are not in accord with the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an.

The Qur'an clearly says:

"O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin." (49:12)

You assume that my statements are motivated by malice. The fact is otherwise. I have not uttered a word contrary to what your own ulama’ have written. You have just said that I have insulted Caliph ‘Umar. But there was not the slightest indication of an insult. What I said corresponds to the records of history. Now I am constrained to give a clearer view of facts in order to quiet this antagonism.

You said that Caliph ‘Umar was responsible for the Muslim conquests. No one denies that the Muslims achieved great conquests during the caliphate of ‘Umar. But remember that, according to the evidence of your prominent ulama’, like Qazi Abu Bakr Khatib, in his History of Baghdad, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe-Nahju'l-Balagha, and many other writers, Caliph ‘Umar sought guidance from ‘Ali in all administrative and military matters. And he acted on ‘Ali's advice. In addition, there was a difference in the Islamic conquests of different periods.

The first kind refers to conquests during the time of the Prophet himself, which were due primarily to ‘Ali's gallantry. Everyone agrees that ‘Ali was the bravest of the brave. If he did not fight in a battle, victory was not achieved.

For instance, in the Battle of Khaibar, he suffered from an eye ailment, and it was impossible for him to go to battle. The Muslims suffered repeated defeats until, when he was cured by the Prophet, ‘Ali advanced toward the enemy and conquered the forts of Khaibar.

In the Battle of Uhud, when the Muslims broke ranks and ran, it was ‘Ali who stood firm. Dauntless, he protected the Prophet from the enemy until a hidden voice proclaimed, "There is no sword other than Dhu'l-fiqar, and there is no brave youth other than ‘Ali."

The second kind of conquest pertains to those battles which were fought after the Prophet's death. These victories were due to the bravery of the great Muslim soldiers and their expert planning. But we are not concerned here with the Islamic conquests during ‘Umar's caliphate. Our topic is the courage of Caliph ‘Umar himself. It is not verified by any historical evidence.

Hafiz: It is insulting to claim that Caliph ‘Umar ran from the battlefield and that this led to the defeat of the Muslims.

Well-Wisher: If citing historical facts about men is an insult, then this insult has been recorded by your own ulama’.

Hafiz: Where have our ulama’ written that Caliph ‘Umar fled from the battlefield? When did he cause the defeat of the Muslims?

Well-Wisher: Since ‘Ali was suffering from an eye ailment on the first day of the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet gave the Muslim flag to Abu Bakr, who led the Muslim army against the Jews. Suffering a defeat after a short battle, he returned. The next day the Muslim flag was given to ‘Umar, but before he reached the place of battle, he fled in panic.

Hafiz: These statements are Shi’as fabrications.

Well-Wisher: The Battle of Khaibar was an important event of the Prophet's life, recorded in detail by historians of both sects. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Volume I, page 62, Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul, page 40, from the Sira of Ibn Hisham, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 14, and many others of your ulama’ have recorded this event.

But the most authentic narrations are those of two great scholars: Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Bukhari, who writes in his Sahih, Volume II, printed in Egypt, 1320 A.H., page 100, and Muslim Ibn Hujjaj, who writes in his Sahih, Volume II, printed in Egypt, 1320 A.H., page 324, that "Caliph ‘Umar fled from the battlefield on two occasions." Among the many clear proofs on this point are the unambiguous verses of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid the Mu'tazilite, known as "Alawiyyat al-Sab'a, in praise of ‘Ali. Regarding the "Gate of Khaibar," he says: "Have you heard the story of the Conquest of Khaibar?

So many mysteries are linked together which bewilder even the wise mind! These two (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) had no liking for, or acquaintance with, bearing a flag (leading an army). They did not know the secret of maintaining the prestige of a flag, they covered it with scorn and took to their heels, though they knew that fleeing from the battlefield is tantamount to infidelity.

They did so because one of the brave Jewish soldiers, a tall youth with a naked sword in hand, riding on a steed of towering stature, attacked them, like an excited male ostrich, which had gained its strength from spring air and vegetation. He was like a huge bird which had adorned itself with a beautiful color and was going towards its beloved. The blaze of the fire of death from his sword and lance shown and frightened the two men."

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid addressing them (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) says further: "I apologize for you, for your defeat and fleeing, since everyone dislikes death and loves life. Like all others, you too did not like death although there is no immunity from death. But you could not court death."

My purpose is not to insult anyone. I relate historical facts to show that the Caliph had no such bravery which would entitle him to the epithet "vehement against the infidels." The fact is that he ran from the battlefield. The attribute in question belonged to ‘Ali alone, who in every battle was vehement against the infidels. This fact has been attested to by Allah in the Holy Qur'an. He says:

"O you who believe! Whoever of you turns away from his religion, soon Allah will bring another people; He loves them and they love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the infidels, striving hard in Allah's way, and they fear not the censure of any censurer; this is the grace of Allah. He gives it to whomsoever He desires."(5:54)

Hafiz: It is astonishing that you try to ascribe this verse to ‘Ali. It refers to the believers who possess these qualities and are Allah's loved ones.

Well-Wisher: It would be better if you asked me what argument I could furnish in support of my assertion. My reply is that if this verse were revealed in praise of the believers, they would never have run from the battlefield.

Hafiz: Is it fair to accuse the believers and the Prophet's Companions of fleeing from danger? These people fought bravely in battle.

Well-Wisher: It is not I who have called them "runners." History shows them as such. Perhaps you have forgotten that in the battles of Uhud and Hunain both the believers and the companions in general, including the great companions of the Prophet, sought safety in flight. As reported by Tabrini and others, they left the Prophet alone among the infidels. Is it possible that those who turned their backs to the enemy leaving the Holy Prophet alone to face the enemy were the loved ones of Allah and His Prophet?

I am not the only one to claim that this verse is in praise of ‘Ali. Abu Ishaq Imam Ahmad Tha'labi, whom you regard as the chief of your traditionists, writes in his Kashfu'l-Bayan that this verse was revealed in praise of ‘Ali because no other person possessed the attributes mentioned in it.

No historian - ours or foreigners - has written that in any of the 36 battles fought by the Prophet did ‘Ali ever falter. In the Battle of Uhud, when all the other companions fled, and the enemy's 5,000 troops attacked the Muslims, the only person who stayed at his post until victory was achieved was ‘Ali.

Although wounded in several places and bleeding profusely, he rallied those who had fled and continued fighting until victory was achieved.

Hafiz: Are you not ashamed to attribute "fleeing" to the great companions? All the companions in general and the two Caliphs - Abu Bakr and ‘Umar - in particular bravely surrounded the Prophet and protected him.

Well-Wisher: You have not studied history very carefully. In general, historians have written that in the battles of Uhud, Hunain, and Khaibar all the companions fled. I have told you about Khaibar. As for Hunain, Hamidi in his Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahihain and Halabi in his Siratu'l-Halabiyya, Volume III, page 123, say that all the companions fled, except four: ‘Ali and Abbas were in front of the Prophet, Abu Sufyan Ibn Harith held the reins of the Prophet's horse, and Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud stood on his left.

The fleeing of the Muslims at Uhud has not been denied by anyone. Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 27, with his own sources, quotes Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud as saying that the Prophet said: "Whenever ‘Ali was sent alone in a battle, I saw Gabriel on his right side, Michael on his left, and a cloud sheltering him from above until Allah made him victorious."

Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i narrates hadith 202 in his Khasa'is al-Alawi that Imam Hasan, wearing a black turban, came to the people and narrated the qualities of his father, saying that in the Battle of Khaibar, when ‘Ali went toward the fort, "Gabriel was fighting on his right and Michael on his left side. He encountered the enemy with great valor until he achieved victory and was entitled to Allah's love."

In this verse Allah says that He loves those who possess these attributes and that they too love Him. This quality of being loved by Allah is peculiar to ‘Ali. There is a great deal of evidence in support of this view. Among the many hadith relating to this matter is the one reported by Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 7.

He narrates, through his own sources, from Abdullah Ibn Abbas, who said that one day he was sitting with his father, Abbas, before the Holy Prophet, when ‘Ali came in and saluted him. The Prophet stood up, took him into his arms, kissed him between his eyes, and made him sit down at his right side. Abbas then asked the Prophet if he loved ‘Ali. The Holy Prophet replied, "O my respected uncle! By Allah, Allah loves him more than I love him."

The strongest proof of ‘Ali's being the loved one of Allah, and of his bravery on the battlefield, is the hadith al-Rayat (Hadith of the Ensign), which is part of your authentic collections of traditions. None of your prominent ulama’ has denied it.

Nawab: What is the hadith al-Rayat? If you don't mind, please quote it with its sources.

And Abu Qasim Husain ibn Muhammad (Raghib Isfahani) in Muhaziratu'l-Udaba, Volume II, page 212. In short, virtually all of your historians and traditionists have recorded this hadith, so that Hakim says: "This hadith has reached the stage of unanimity." Tabrini says: "‘Ali's victory in Khaibar is proved by its unanimity."

When the Muslim army laid siege to the Fort of Khaibar, it suffered defeat three times under the command of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and they fled. The companions were greatly frustrated. In order to inspire the companions, the Prophet announced that Khaibar would be conquered. He said: "By Allah, tomorrow I will give the standard to one who will return successful. He is one who attacks repeatedly and never leaves the battlefield and never retraces his steps until he achieves success.

He loves Allah and the Prophet of Allah, and Allah and the Prophet of Allah love him." That night the companions could not sleep, wondering who would be given this special favor. At dawn, all put on their military garb and presented themselves before the Prophet. The Prophet asked, "Where is my brother and son of my uncle, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib?" They told him, "O Prophet of Allah, he is suffering so much with sore eyes that he cannot move." The Prophet asked Salman to call ‘Ali. Salman took ‘Ali by the hand and brought him to the Prophet.

He saluted the Prophet, and after returning the salutation, the Prophet asked, "How are you, O Abu'l-Hasan?" He replied, "It is all well by the grace of Allah. I am suffering from headache and so much pain in the eyes that I cannot see anything."

The Prophet bade him come near. When ‘Ali had moved closer, the Prophet applied the saliva of his own mouth to ‘Ali's eyes and prayed for him. Soon his eyes were bright, and his ailment vanished completely. He gave ‘Ali the flag of victory. ‘Ali proceeded to the forts of Khaibar, fought against the Jews, slew their brave soldiers, like Harhab, Harith, Hisham, and Alqama, and conquered the hitherto invincible Forts of Khaibar.

Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, page 21, has quoted this report from the six books of tradition, while Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 14, after narrating the hadith says that the Prophet's chief poet, Hasan Ibn Thabit, was present on this occasion. He composed couplets in praise of ‘Ali: "‘Ali was suffering from an eye disorder. Because there was no physician, the Prophet cured him with his own saliva. So both the curer and the patient were blessed.

The Holy Prophet said, 'Today I will give the standard to a highly skilled horseman, valiant and chivalrous, my comrade in battle. He loves Allah and Allah loves him; so through him He will make us conquer the Forts.' After this, leaving all others aside, he selected ‘Ali and made him his successor."

Ibn Sabbagh Maliki narrates from Sahih Muslim that ‘Umar Ibn Khattab said: "I never aspired for bearing the standard, but that day I had a keen desire for it. I was repeatedly making myself conspicuous before the Prophet, wishing that perhaps he might call me, and that I might be blessed with this honor. But it was ‘Ali who was called by the Prophet and the glory went to him."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi has recorded this report in his Tadhkira, page 15, and Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Nisa'i in his Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, after narrating twelve hadith on the topic of ‘Ali's bearing the standard at Khaibar, quotes the same report in the eighteenth hadith about ‘Umar's hope for getting the standard.

Also Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in his Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafa, Ibn Hajar Makki, in his Sawa'iq, and Ibn Shirwaini in his Firdausu'l-Akhbar, narrate that ‘Umar Ibn Khattab said: "‘Ali has been endowed with three things, and if I possessed only one, I would have preferred it to all the camels in my possession: ‘Ali's marriage with Fatima; his staying in the mosque in every condition, and this was not permissible for anyone except ‘Ali, and his bearing the standard in the Conquest of Khaibar."

My argument, based on the records of your own traditionists, proves that the reference in the verse - "He (Allah) loves them and they also love Him" - is to ‘Ali. Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 13, relates that the Prophet said: "If one wishes to look at Adam, Noah, and Abraham, look at ‘Ali." He says that ‘Ali is the one Allah refers to in the Holy Qur'an:

"And those who are with him are strong against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves." (48:29).

As for your contention that the phrase in the verse "Compassionate among themselves" refers to Uthman and indicates his place as the third Caliph, this is not supported by historical evidence. In fact, his character was just the opposite. There are many arguments to prove this, but I will stop here. What could be said might provoke hostility.

Hafiz: If you confine yourself to authentic references, there is no reason why we should be displeased.

Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khallikan, Ibn A'sam Kufi (it is also recorded in Siha al-Sitta), Mas'udi in Muruju'dh-Dhahab, Volume I, page 435, Ibn Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, and others of your ulama’ affirm that when Uthman Ibn Affan became Caliph, he acted against the examples set by the Holy Prophet and also against the ways of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Both sects agree that in the Consultative Council in which he was selected as Caliph Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Auf offered him allegiance based on the Book of Allah, the hadith of the Prophet, and the ways of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

One condition of his allegiance was that Uthman would not let the Bani Umayya interfere nor would he give them any authority. But when his position became secure, he violated these pledges. According to the Holy Qur'an and reliable hadith, to violate an agreement is a great sin.

Your own ulama’ say that Caliph Uthman broke his pledge. Throughout his caliphate he acted in contradiction to the way of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. He gave the Bani Umayya full authority over the people's lives and property.

Hafiz: In what way did he act against the teachings and practice of the Prophet and the ways of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar?

Well-Wisher: The famous traditionist, Mas'udi, in his Muruju'dh-Dhahab, Volume I, page 433, and other historians have recorded that Uthman built a sophisticated stone house with doors made of sandalwood. He accumulated great wealth, which he bestowed lavishly on the Umayyads and others.

For instance, the religious levy (Khums) from Armenia, which was conquered during this time, was bestowed on the cursed Marwan without any religious sanction. He also gave him 100,000 dirhams from the Baitu'l-Mal (the public treasury).

He gave 400,000 dirhams to Abdullah Ibn Khalid, 100,000 dirhams to Hakam Ibn Abi'l-As, who was cursed and banished by the Prophet, and 200,000 dirhams to Abu Sufyan (as recorded by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 68).

On the day he was murdered, his personal fortune amounted to 150,000 dinars and 20 million dirhams in cash. He owned property in Wadiu'l-Qura and Hunain valued at 100,000 dinars and huge herds of cattle, sheep, and camels. As a consequence of his actions, the leading Umayyads amassed great wealth at the expense of the people.

For a caliph of Islam to accumulate such wealth when many people were starving was certainly wrong. Moreover, this behavior was completely at variance with the ways of his companions, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Uthman pledged in the Consultative Council that he would follow in their footsteps.

Mas'udi in his Muruju'dh-Dhahab says about Caliph Uthman, that when Caliph ‘Umar went with his son, Abdullah, to perform the Hajj (pilgrimage), their expenditure on the journey, both ways, was sixteen dinars. He told his son that they had been extravagant. If you compare the frugal ways of ‘Umar with the lavish expenditures of Uthman, you will admit that the latter's way of life was contrary to his pledge at the Council.

Uthman also gave the Umayyads authority over the life and honor of the people. Consequently, disorder prevailed in Muslim lands. He appointed his favorites to high positions against the wishes of the Holy Prophet, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar. For instance, he gave high positions to his uncle, Hakam Ibn As, and Hakam's son, Marwan, both of whom were banished and cursed by the Prophet.

Hafiz: Can you prove that they were cursed?

Well-Wisher: There are two ways to prove that they were cursed. Allah called the Bani Umayya "The Accursed Tree" in the Qur'an (17:60). Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, Tabari, Qartabi, Nishapuri, Suyuti, Shawkani, Alusi, Ibn Abi Hatim, Khatib Baghdadi, Ibn Mardawaih, Hakim, Maqrizi, Baihaqi, and others of your ulama’ narrate from Ibn Abbas that the "Accursed Tree" in the Qur'an refers to the Umayya tribe. In a dream, the Prophet saw monkeys climbing up and down his pulpit (and driving men away from his mosque).

When he woke, the Angel Gabriel revealed this verse and told the Prophet that the monkeys were the Bani Umayyads, who would usurp his caliphate after him. His place of prayer and pulpit would remain in their control for a thousand months. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi narrates from Ibn Abbas that the Prophet mentioned the name of Hakam Ibn As. He is, therefore, accursed since he belongs to the Accursed Tree.

There are many hadith from Sunni sources about their being cursed. Hakim Nishapuri, in his Mustadrak, Volume IV, page 437 and Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, quote from Hakim the following hadith from the Prophet: "Verily, my family will shortly be dispersed and assassinated by my community. Bani Umayya, Bani Mughira, and Bani Makhzum are the most callous of our enemies."

The Prophet said about Marwan, a child at that time, "This is a lizard, son of a lizard, a cursed one, son of a cursed one." Ibn Hajar relates from ‘Umar ibn Murratu'l-Jihni, Halabi in Siratu'l-Halabiyya, Volume I, page 337; Baladhuri in Ansab, Volume V, 126; Sulayman Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda; Hakim

in Mustadrak, Volume IV, page 481; Damiri in Hayatu'l-Haiwan, Volume II, page 291; Ibn Asakir in his Ta'rikh; Imamu'l-Haram Muhyi'd-Din Tabari in Zakha'iru'l-Uqba, and others have narrated from ‘Umar ibn Murra that Hakam Ibn As sought an interview with the Prophet. The Prophet, recognizing his voice, said: "Let him come in. Curse be on him and on his descendants, excepting those who believe, and they will be few."

Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, in Volume V of his Tafsir al-Kabir, writing about the verse "The Accursed Tree..." and its meaning, refers to the statement of A’ysha, who said to Marwan: "Allah cursed your father when you were present in his semen; so you are also a part of him, who has been cursed by Allah." Allama Mas'udi says in his Muruju'dh-Dhahab, Volume I, page 435, that Marwan Ibn Hakam was condemned and banished by the Prophet.

He was exiled from Medina. He was not allowed to enter Medina during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, but when Uthman became caliph, he acted contrary to the teaching of the Holy Prophet, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar and allowed him to enter Medina. He kept him close to himself with all other Umayyads and showed them favor.

Nawab: Who was Hakam Ibn Abi-l-As, and why was he banished by the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: Hakam Ibn As was the uncle of Caliph Uthman. According to Tabari, Ibn Athir, and Baladhuri, who writes in Ansab, Volume V, page 17, he was the neighbor of the Prophet in the Age of Ignorance. He abused the Holy Prophet, particularly after the announcement of his prophethood.

He walked behind the Prophet and ridiculed him by imitating his gestures. Even during prayers, he pointed towards him scornfully. After the Prophet cursed him, he remained in a paralytic condition permanently and eventually he lost his sanity.

After the conquest of Mecca, he came to Medina and apparently embraced Islam, but he often insulted the Prophet. When he went to the Prophet's house, the Holy Prophet soon came out of his house and said, "No one should seek pardon on his behalf. Now he and his sons, Marwan and others, should leave Medina."

Accordingly, the Muslims immediately banished him from Medina and drove him out to Ta'if. During the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, Uthman supported him, saying that he was his uncle and that he should be allowed to return to Medina. But the others did not accept this, saying that since he was cursed and banished by the Holy Prophet, they would not let him return.

When Uthman became caliph, he called all of them back. Although many people objected to it, Uthman showed his relatives and other favorites special favor. He made Marwan his assistant and chief officer of the court. He gathered round him many wicked people of the Umayyads and appointed them to high positions.

The result was that, according to ‘Umar's prediction, they were responsible for Uthman's fate. Among the people appointed by Uthman was Walid Ibn Aqaba Ibn Abi Mu'ith, who was sent to be the Governor of Kufa. According to the report of Mas'udi in Muruju'dh-Dhahab, Volume I, the Prophet said concerning Walid:

"Verily, he is one of those who will go to Hell." He openly indulged in sinful acts. According to the statement of Mas'udi in Muruju'dh-Dhahab, Abdu'l-Fida in his Ta'rikh, Suyuti in Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafa, page 104, Abu'l-Faraj in Aghani, Volume IV, page 128; Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Musnad, Volume I, page 42; Yaqubi in Ta'rikh, Volume II, page 142; Ibn Athir also in Usudu'l-Uqba, Volume V, page 91, and others said that, during his governorship in Kufa, Walid passed the whole night in self-indulgence.

He came to the mosque for the dawn prayer intoxicated and offered four rak'ats of the morning prayer (instead of two) and then told the people: "What a pleasant morn! I would like to extend the prayer further if you consent."

Some said that he vomited under the dome of the mosque which caused great annoyance to the people, who complained to Caliph Uthman. One of these well known people was Mu'awiya, who was made Governor of Syria. Walid was replaced by Sa'id Ibn As as Governor of Kufa.

When people learned of the policies of Uthman, policies in contradiction to the teachings of the Prophet, they became furious. They took actions which eventually caused such serious results. Uthman was responsible for his murder because he did not consider the effects of his deeds. He rejected ‘Ali's counsel and was misled by servile flatterers. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid quotes a conversation between ‘Umar and Ibn Abbas in his Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume III, page 106.

Caliph ‘Umar said something about each of the six members of the Consultative Council and pointed out their defects. When the name of Uthman was mentioned, "After sighing three times, ‘Umar said that if the caliphate reached Uthman, he would place the sons of Abi Mu'it (Umayyads) over the people.’Then the Arabs will surely rise in rebellion against him and kill him.'"

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid agrees with ‘Umar's assessment. When Uthman became caliph, he gathered round him the Bani Umayya. He appointed them as governors, and when they abused their authority, he looked the other way. Caliph Uthman did not even detach himself from Marwan. The people, seething with discontent, revolted against him and finally killed him.

It would be helpful if you would read the great History by Jarir Tabari, one of your eminent ulama’, who wrote: "The Holy Prophet saw Abu Sufyan riding a donkey. Mu'awiya was pulling it from the front, and his son, Yazid, was pushing it from behind. The Prophet said, 'Curse be upon the rider, the puller, and the pusher.'"

Your own prominent ulama’, like Tabari and Ibn A'sam Kufi, faulted Caliph Uthman for not putting Abu Sufyan to death when the latter, in the open court, denied Islam, the wahi (revelation), and the presence of Gabriel. After giving Abu Sufyan a slight reproof, Uthman brushed the matter aside.

I also ask you to consider Address 163 of the Nahju'l-Balagha, and the narration which Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume II, (printed in Egypt), page 582, and quotes from Tabari's Ta'rikh al-Kabir that some of the companions in various provinces wrote letters urging the people to declare Jihad (Holy war) to protect themselves from Uthman's cruel oppression. In 34 A.H. people with complaints against officials appointed by Uthman came to ‘Ali in Medina and asked him to intervene.

‘Ali went to Uthman and warned him about the horrible consequences of continuing his present policies. ‘Ali said, "I tell you, for Allah's sake, let yourself not be a murdered leader of this community. It has been said that a leader of this community will be killed, after which the doors of bloodshed and murder will remain open until the Day of Resurrection." But Marwan and the Umayyad companions rejected ‘Ali's advice. After ‘Ali's departure, Uthman ordered people to gather in the mosque.

He went to the pulpit and, instead of pacifying the people, he antagonized them further. The result was as Caliph ‘Umar predicted: Uthman was killed by insurgents. Unlike Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, who followed ‘Ali's advice, Uthman rejected his warning and suffered the consequences.

Moreover, Uthman beat the companions who objected to his oppression. Among them was Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, who was a Hafiz, Qari (Qur'an reciter), treasurer of the public treasury, a scribe who recorded the revealed verses, and one of the chief companions of the Holy Prophet. He was held in high esteem by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, both of whom used to take counsel from him. Ibn Khaldun in his History commented that Caliph ‘Umar insisted that Abdullah remain with him because he possessed complete knowledge of the Holy Qur'an and because the Prophet spoke highly of him.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid and others have written the same thing. Your ulama’ agree that when Uthman intended to compile the Holy Qur'an, he obtained all the copies from the scribes. He demanded the copy of the Holy Qur'an from Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud also. Abdullah did not give it to him. Uthman himself went to his house and took the copy of the Holy Qur'an from him by force.

Later, when Abdullah learned that, like other copies of the Holy Qur'an, his copy had been burnt, he was much aggrieved. In social and religious gatherings, he narrated the condemnatory hadith which he knew about Uthman.

When this news reached Uthman, he had Ibn Mas'ud so severely beaten by his slaves that his teeth were broken, and he was confined to bed. After three days he succumbed to his injuries. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in detail about these facts in Volume I, pages 67 and 226 of Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha (printed in Egypt) under "Ta'n VI," and goes on to say that Uthman went to see the ailing Abdullah.

They talked together for some time. Uthman said, "O Abdu'r-Rahman! Pray to Allah for my forgiveness." Abdullah said, "I pray to Allah to take my right from you" (that is, that justice be done).

When Abu Dharr, a close companion of the Holy Prophet, was banished to Rabba, Abdullah went to see him off. For this Abdullah was given forty lashes. So Abdullah insisted to Ammar Yasir that Uthman not be allowed to offer Abdullah's funeral prayers. Ammar Yasir agreed, and after Abdullah's death, he offered the funeral prayers along with a group of the companions.

When Uthman learned of the funeral arrangement, he came to Abdullah's grave and asked Ammar why he had said the funeral prayers. He replied that he was constrained to do it because Abdullah had willed it.

Another example of Uthman's cruelty was his beating of Ammar Yasir. Ulama’ of both sects relate that when Umayyad oppression increased, some companions of the Prophet wrote to Uthman, asking him to relent. They said that if he continued to assist his cruel Umayyad Governors, he would not only be harming Islam, but he would himself be subjected to serious consequences.

They asked Ammar Yasir to deliver the petition since Uthman himself had acknowledged Ammar's virtue. They had often heard Uthman say that the Prophet said that faith was blended with the flesh and blood of Ammar.

So Ammar took the letter to Uthman. When he arrived, Uthman asked him, "Do you have business with me?" He replied: "I have no business of a personal nature. But a group of the Prophet's Companions has written in this letter some suggestions and advice for your welfare. They have sent them to you through me."

After reading a few lines, Uthman threw the letter down. Ammar said: "It was not good of you. A letter from the companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah deserves respect. Why did you throw it on the ground? It would be proper for you to have read it and replied to it?"

"You are lying!" Uthman shouted. Then he ordered his slaves to beat him, and Uthman himself kicked him in the stomach. He fell, unconscious; his relatives came and took him to the house of Ummu'l-Mu'minin Umm Salma (one of the Prophet's wives). From noon until midnight he remained unconscious. The tribes of Hudhail and Bani Makhzun turned against Uthman because of his cruelty to Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud and Ammar Yasir.

Uthman was also cruel to Jandab Ibn Junada, known as Abu Dharr Ghifari, one of the intimate companions of the Holy Prophet and a learned man. Great traditionists and historians of both sects have reported that this ninety-year-old man was unjustly exiled from place to place with utmost ignominy - from Medina to Syria, to Medina again, and then from Medina to the desert of Rabza. He rode on a naked camel accompanied by his only daughter. He died in Rabza in penury and neglect.

It has been widely reported how he mistreated the pure-hearted Abu Dharr, the loved one of the Holy Prophet, and also how Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, the hafiz and recorder of Wahi, who was given forty lashes because he bid farewell to Abu Dharr Ghifari. Insulting treatment was likewise shown to ‘Ali for the same reason.

Hafiz: If torment was inflicted on Abu Dharr, it was because of unworthy officials. Caliph Uthman, who was very kind and soft-hearted, was unaware of these events.

Well-Wisher: Your defense of Caliph Uthman is contrary to facts. The anguish inflicted on Abu Dharr was due to the explicit orders of Uthman himself. To prove this fact, one need only refer to your own ulama’. For instance, you may consult Ibn Athir's Nihaya, Volume I, and his Ta'rikh al-Yaqubi, and particularly page 241 of Volume I of Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid. These scholars have recorded Uthman's letter to Mu'awiya.

When Mu'awiya sent a malicious report against Abu Dharr from Syria, Uthman wrote to him, "Send Jundub (Abu Dharr) to me on an unsaddled camel, alone, with a harsh man driving it day and night."

When he reached Medina, Abu Dharr's legs were bruised and bleeding. And yet your own ulama’ have recorded hadith saying that Abu Dharr was specifically mentioned by the Prophet as one whom all mankind must love. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Volume I, page 172; Ibn Maja Qazwini in Sunan, Volume I; page 66.

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Shafi'i in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 59, recording the fifth of forty hadith written in Sawa'iq Muhriqa by Ibn Hajar Makki as correct, having been taken from Tirmidhi and Hakim, as narrated by Buraida, and he from his father; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, Volume III, page 455; Tirmidhi in Sahih, Volume II, page 213; Ibn Abdi'l-Birr in Isti'ab, Volume II, page 557; Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume III, page 130; and Suyuti in Jam'u's-Saghir have recorded that the Holy Prophet said:

"Allah has ordered me to love four people; and He has informed me that He also loves them." The people said, "O Prophet of Allah! Let us know their names." The Holy Prophet said, "They are ‘Ali, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, and Salman." Would justice allow such loved ones of Allah to be treated so cruelly and call that treatment kindness?

Hafiz: Historians have reported that Abu Dharr was a disturbing figure. He carried on relentless propaganda in Syria in favor of ‘Ali, drew the attention of the Syrians to ‘Ali's rank, and said that he had heard the Holy Prophet saying that ‘Ali was his successor.

Because he called the others usurpers and said that ‘Ali was the rightful caliph appointed by Allah, Caliph Uthman, to preserve unity and avoid disturbances, had to call him from Syria. If a man attempts to cause dissension among the people, it is the duty of the caliph to remove him from the area.

Well-Wisher: If a man speaks the truth, is it fair to exile him and torture him because he does so? Does Islam allow us to force old men to ride a thin, unsaddled camel, driven fiercely by a hot-tempered slave, without stopping for rest, so that he reaches his destination bruised and bloody? Does this indicate soft-heartedness?

Apart from that, if Uthman wanted to maintain unity and avoid disturbances, why didn't he remove the miscreant Umayyads, like Marwan, who was cursed and banished by the Holy Prophet and the heretic, Walid, an exposed sinner who offered prayers while drunk and who vomited under the arch of the mosque? Why didn't he remove the corrupt politicians from his government, men who oppressed the people, who finally rebelled and murdered Uthman.

Hafiz: How can you say that Abu Dharr spoke the truth? How do you know that what he said was based on correct knowledge and that he did not fabricate hadith in the name of the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: We say so because the Holy Prophet himself testified to Abu Dharr's veracity. Your own ulama’ have written that the Prophet said: "Abu Dharr among my people is like Jesus among the Bani Isra'il in truthfulness, devotion, and piety."

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Musnad, Volume II, page 163 and 175; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 241; from Mahidi; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya and the author of Lisanu'l-Arab, on the basis of several authorities have related that the Holy Prophet said: "The earth has not borne nor has the sky covered, a man more truthful than Abu Dharr."

If the Holy Prophet confirms the truthfulness of a man, we can be certain that that man spoke the truth. Nor does Allah call that person his loved one who is a liar. If there were a single instance of Abu Dharr telling lies, the early ulama’ of your sect would have recorded it, as they have concerning Abu Huraira and others.

The Prophet testified to his righteousness and also predicted his torture. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, in his Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Volume I, page 162, narrates from his own sources that Abu Dharr said that he was standing before the Prophet when the latter said to him: "'You are a pious man; soon after me you will suffer a calamity.' I asked: 'In the way of Allah?' He said, 'Yes in the way of Allah!' I said: 'I welcome Allah's command!'" Surely the suffering the venerable companion Abu Dharr endured in the desert by the order of Mu'awiya, Uthman, and their Bani Umayya was the same calamity predicted by the Holy Prophet.

I really wonder at your self-contradictory statements. On the one hand you narrate the hadith from the Prophet that "All my companions are like stars; if you follow any one of them, you will be rescued."

On the other hand, when one of the most venerable companions of the Holy Prophet is tortured and dies in misery, you defend the offender! You should either disprove the statements of your own ulama’, or admit that the attributes mentioned in the verse under consideration do not relate to those who brutalized the revered companions of the Holy Prophet.

Hafiz: Abu Dharr chose to go to Rabza of his own free will.

Well-Wisher: Such statements reflect attempts of your fanatical ulama’ to conceal the misdeeds of their elders. Abu Dharr's forced banishment to Rabza is commonly acknowledged. As an example, I will confine myself to quoting one narration, which has been recorded by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad, Volume V page 156, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 241, and Waqidi in his History from Abu'l-Aswad Du'ili.

Abu Dharr was asked about his journey to Rabna. Abu Dharr said that he was forcibly exiled and sent to the wilderness. He continued: "The Holy Prophet informed me about this. One day I fell asleep in the mosque. The Prophet came and asked me why I was sleeping in the mosque. I said that I fell asleep inadvertently. He asked me what I would do if I were banished from Medina. I said I would go to the Holy land of Syria.

He asked me what I would do if I were banished from there, too. I said I would come back to the mosque. He again asked me what I would do if I were turned out from here also. I said I would draw the sword and fight.

He asked me if he should tell me something which would be to my benefit. When I said 'Yes,' he said to me: 'Go to whatever place they take you.' So I listened to what he said, and I obeyed him. After this Abu Dharr said, 'By Allah, when Uthman will go before Allah, he will stand a sinner regarding my case.'"

If you consider the facts with an open mind, you will agree that ‘Ali possessed the attributes of mercy and kindness to the highest degree. All historians, including, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, report that when ‘Ali assumed the caliphate, he did away with the abuses and innovations that had crept in.

He removed the ungodly officials of the Bani Umayya, who had oppressed the provinces during the period of Uthman's caliphate. Selfish politicians advised him to postpone his decision about deposing officials until ‘Ali was more firmly established in authority.

The Holy Imam said: "I swear by Allah that I will not allow such sly deceptions. You insist that I use conciliatory measures, but you do not understand that as long as they remain in authority representing me, they would be perpetrating the same tyranny and outrage for which I shall be answerable in the divine court of justice. I cannot allow this injustice."

‘Ali's deposition of officials led to the hostility of power-hungry people, like Mu'awiya, and prepared the way for the battles of Jamal and Siffin. If Talha and Zubair had been appointed as governors, they would not have fomented disturbances at Basra and let the Battle of the Camel take place.

His kindness and generosity extended to friends and enemies alike. Uthman had been very unkind to him (more so than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar had been) but when insurgents enforced a blockade of Uthman's palace, cutting off water and food, he appealed to ‘Ali for help. ‘Ali sent his sons, Hasan and Husain, with water and bread.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid describes this incident in detail in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha. Caliph Uthman had a reputation for charity and benevolence, but it was only for his family, like Abu Sufyan, Hakam Ibn Abi'l-As, and Marwan Ibn Hakam. He showered money and gifts on them from the public treasury without religious sanction.

But the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali never gave more than what was due, even to near relatives. His elder brother, Aqil, came to him and requested more money than he was usually given. ‘Ali paid no heed to his request. Aqil insisted and said that since ‘Ali was the Caliph and had sole authority over affairs, that his needs should be fulfilled. As a caution to his brother, ‘Ali secretly heated a piece of iron and placed it near Aqil's body. He cried out like a man in intense agony, afraid he would be burned.

‘Ali said: "Let mourners morn your death, O Aqil! You shrieked when an iron heated by man was brought near you, and yet you draw me toward that fire which Allah has created of His wrath. Is it proper that you should seek shelter from this ordinary pain, and that I should not protect myself from Hellfire?"

Even after subduing his enemy, ‘Ali was kind. The cursed Marwan, son of the cursed Hakam, was ‘Ali's fierce enemy. But when ‘Ali overpowered Marwan in the Battle of Jamal, he pardoned him. Abdullah Ibn Zubair was another bitter enemy.

He abused ‘Ali openly, and in Basra when Abdullah read his address before the people, he said: "Verily, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib is debased, mean, and stingy." (Allah forbid) But when the Holy Imam won the Battle of Jamal and this wicked man was brought as a captive before him, ‘Ali did not utter a harsh word against him. ‘Ali turned his face from him and pardoned him.

The best example of ‘Ali's compassion was his behavior towards A’ysha. The way she came face to face to fight him and railed at him would have enraged a lesser man. But when ‘Ali defeated her, he treated her with dignity. He assigned to Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr, her brother, the duty of looking after her welfare.

On his order, twenty strong women dressed as men escorted A’ysha to Medina. When she reached Medina, she expressed her gratitude to the women and the wives of the Prophet. She said that she would always remain grateful to him.

She admitted that, although she had been harsh with him and had been responsible for such tumult, he had not uttered a word against her. She said she had only one complaint against him. She wondered why he had sent her to Medina escorted by men. The women slaves immediately removed their masculine garb. It became clear that this scheme was adopted for the purpose of protecting their property from bandits.

Another instance of ‘Ali's compassion was his treatment of Mu'awiya in the Battle of Siffin. Mu'awiya's 12,000 soldiers had sealed off the Euphrates River. When ‘Ali's army found that their expected supply of water had been intercepted, ‘Ali sent a message to Mu'awiya saying that Mu'awiya should not seal off access to the water. Mu'awiya replied that he would deny them use of the water. ‘Ali sent Malik Ashtar with a unit of cavalry. He pushed back Mu'awiya's army and secured access to the Euphrates.

The companions said, "O ‘Ali! Let us retaliate and deny them water, so that the enemy may die of thirst and the battle will be over." ‘Ali said: "No! By Allah, I will not retaliate by following their example. Let their troops have access to the Euphrates."

Your own ulama’, like Tabari, in his Ta'rikh, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Sulayman Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 51, Mas'udi in Muruju'dh-Dhahaba, and other historians have written in detail about the magnanimity of ‘Ali.

You may examine these accounts and then decide who is the likely referent of the verse, "And compassionate among themselves...." In the verse under consideration, Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah, is the subject, and what follows is its predicate. All those attributes are for the same person.

To be with the Holy Prophet, to be vehement against the unbelievers on the battlefield and in learned discourses, to be compassionate to friends and foes - all these qualities refer to one who never left the Prophet or even thought of leaving him. That person is ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib. I have already said earlier that the great scholar, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i has written in his Kifayatu't-Talib that in this verse Allah praised ‘Ali.

Sheikh: There are many replies to your statements, but you simply misinterpret the verse. The phrase "and those who are with him" is plural and cannot refer to one person only. If the attributes mentioned in the verse referred to one person only, why were the pronouns plural?

Well-Wisher: First, you say that there are many answers to my statement. If this were true, then why not mention them? Your silence is proof that there are not "many replies" to my statements. Second, what you just said is fallacious. You know that in both Arabic and other languages the use of the plural for the singular is common as an indication of respect. There are many examples of this usage in the Holy Qur'an, such as the verse:

"Only Allah is your Friend and His Apostle and those who believe, those who perform the prayer and pay the poor-rate while they bow." (5:55)

This verse refers to the time that ‘Ali gave a ring to a beggar during ruku' (bowing in prayer). Here also the words are plural out of deference and respect to the rank of Wilaya (guardianship), and to prove that ‘Ali was the Imam and successor to the Prophet.

The emphasis of the word "innama," renders the meaning - the decision of Allah - final and fixed, i.e., the decision of Allah that the guardian of the believers should be Allah, His Prophet (Muhammad), and the believers who give charity while praying, the latter referring specifically to ‘Ali.

Sheikh: Surely you will admit that your interpretation is not established since there are different views about it. Some say that it refers to the Ansar (helpers), some say that it is in praise of Ibadat Ibn Samit, and some say that it refers to Abdullah Ibn Salam.

Well-Wisher: It is indeed astonishing that scholars like you can contradict your own ulama’. You take the view of a few ignorant and unreliable people whose reports are rejected. Your great men of learning have claimed unanimity on this point, men like Fazil Taftazani and Mulla ‘Ali Qushachi, who says in Sharhe Tajrid: "According to the unanimous view of the commentators, this verse was revealed in praise of ‘Ali, who, while in ruku' (bowing) in prayer, gave away his ring to a beggar."

Sheikh: In the course of your talk concerning this verse, you have tried to prove that ‘Ali was the immediate successor of the Prophet, though the word "Wali" in this verse means "friend" or "loved one," and not "Imam" or "successor." If your view is accepted, that "Wali" means "successor" and "Imam," then according to the agreed-upon principle, it is not confined to one person, but others are included in it, ‘Ali being one of them.

Also in the verse, "Verily, verily your guardian is Allah, and His Prophet, and those who believe..." the use of the plural refers to people in general. To say that the plural form is an indication of respect is not justified without any valid reasoning, Qur'anic example, or other authority.

Well-Wisher: You have misconstrued the phrase "...your guardian...." "Wali" is singular, and "kum" (your) is plural, which refers to the people and does not imply the singular. Of course, "Wali" is for one person who is the guardian for the whole community in every age.

Second, in the verse under consideration, where the plural is used, some of the fanatics have said that it cannot be interpreted as singular as in the verse "...those who establish prayer..." I replied to this objection earlier. I said that eminent writers have often used the plural connoting the singular.

You also claim the plural form in the verse refers to people in general. We say that according to the emphasis of the word "verily," the reference is to ‘Ali, but we do not say that the reference is peculiar to him alone. Others of the Holy family of the Prophet are included in it.

According to authentic hadith, all the Imams of the progeny of the Prophet are included in this verse. Jarullah Zamakhshari writes in Kashshaf that this verse was revealed in particular in praise of ‘Ali, but the plurals used in it mean that others also should follow him.

Sheikh: In this verse "Wali" definitely means "helper." If it meant guardian, which includes the rank of successor, then he should have been appointed to that office during the Prophet's life.

Well-Wisher: The rank of ‘Ali is permanent. The grammatical construction of the sentence and the word "Wali" used as an attribute prove the permanent position of ‘Ali. This fact is further supported by the Prophet declaring ‘Ali his vicegerent on the journey of Tabuk and never withdrawing it.

Our point of view is further strengthened by the hadith al-Manzila (Hadith of Rank), which the Holy Prophet repeatedly narrated: "‘Ali is to me as Aaron was to Moses," which I have explained on previous nights. This in itself is another proof of ‘Ali being the Wali (guardian) or vicegerent of the Holy Prophet during the Prophet's life and after his death.

Sheikh: If we were to give due consideration to the matter, we would admit that this verse does not refer to ‘Ali. His rank is above that which we want to prove from this verse. It does not prove any excellence for him, it rather lowers his position.

Well-Wisher: Neither you nor I - none of the community - including the great companions of the Prophet, have any right to interfere with the real interpretation of the verses. Qur'anic verses are not revealed according to our wishes. If some people interpret their meaning based on mere opinion or point out the occasion on which they were revealed, they are certainly irreligious.

For example, followers of Abu Bakr say that according to the hadith narrated by the notorious forger Akrama, this verse was revealed about Abu Bakr. Can you tell us how this verse lowers the position of ‘Ali?

Sheikh: One of the characteristics of the dignity of the rank of ‘Ali is that while offering prayers he never diverted his attention to any other object. ‘Ali was once wounded in battle. Arrows had lodged in his body, and it was not possible to take them out without inflicting intense pain.

But when he stood in prayer, the arrows were taken out, and because he was engrossed in his worship of Allah, he felt no pain. If while praying, he gave away a ring to a beggar, there was a great flaw in his prayer. How could a man be so engrossed in Allah's mercy and at the same time remove his attention from Allah in response to the voice of a beggar?

Moreover, in the performance of every good deed and for payment of the poor-rate, an intention is obligatory. While performing the prayer, one's attention must be towards Allah alone. How is it possible that his intention deviated from the prayer and turned toward a created being?

Since we consider ‘Ali's rank to be very high, we do not accept your interpretation. And if he did give anything to a beggar, it was certainly not during the prayer, since ruku' (bowing down) means humble submission before Allah.

Well-Wisher: You have learned well how to recite, but you have missed the way to invocation. This objection is weaker than a spider's web. First, ‘Ali's action does not in any way lower his rank. In fact, to give attention to the beggar to give him charity, is a source of excellence. In this case, he combined his bodily and spiritual prayer with a material prayer. Both prayers were in the way of Allah. Dear fellows! The distraction which weakens prayer is one which is conceived with selfish notions.

Attention towards another prayer, while performing a particular prayer, is a sign of excellence. For instance, if during the ritual prayer, one weeps for the dearest of his relations, his prayer will be invalidated. But if he weeps in his extreme love for Him, or in fear of Him, then it is a sign of excellence.

You said ruku' (bowing down) means sincere submission to Allah. This meaning may be appropriate for some occasions. But if you say that bowing down in prayer, which is definite and compulsory, carries the same literal sense, learned men would scoff at you. You also tried to exclude or ignore the verse's clear meaning. You gave a figurative meaning to it, even though you know that the term describes a required action of the ritual prayer, which is bowing down with our palms reaching the two knees.

And this fact has been acknowledged by your prominent ulama’, as I have stated earlier. Fazil Qushachi, in his Sharhe Tajrid, explains the views of the commentators in general that ‘Ali, while bowing down in prayer, gave the ring to the beggar. Leaving all things aside, please tell us whether this verse was revealed in praise or in condemnation?

Sheikh: Obviously it was in praise.

Well-Wisher: So when the ulama’ of both sects have said that this verse was revealed in praise of ‘Ali, and that it contains the commendation Allah, why would you make frivolous objections, agreeing with the fanatical Kharijis, whose views have been thrust into your pure mind from childhood? Why don't you acknowledge this fact?

Sheikh: Excuse me! Since you are an eloquent speaker, you often use allusions and references which may create in uninformed minds ideas that may produce unhappy results. It would be better if you refrained from such talk.

Well-Wisher: In my talk there is nothing but reality. Allah be my witness, I never intended to use allusions or indirect references. There is no need for that. Whatever I wish to say, I say clearly. Please tell me what allusion you mean.

Sheikh: A short while ago during your talk in connection with the verse under consideration, you said that the attributes mentioned therein are peculiar to ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, who, from the beginning to the end of his life, had never any doubt in his faith. In this way you imply that others were guilty of apostasy. Had the great caliphs or the companions any doubt in their faith? Assuredly the companions, like ‘Ali, never doubted the truth of Islam. Never for a moment did they deviate from the Prophet's teaching.

Well-Wisher: First, I never used the words you just used. Second, you know that to prove something for someone does not disprove the same thing for someone else. Third, although you are trying to criticize me, I think others have no such thing in mind. Allah be my witness, I have not made any indirect reference to anything, nor have I thought of doing so. And if anything occurred to your mind, you might have asked me about it privately.

Sheikh: The manner of your talking shows that there is some point on which you are silent. I ask you to let us know what you have in mind and to give authentic references for what you say.

Well-Wisher: It is you who have created such things in our minds; you insist that the issue be discussed. Again, I ask you to ignore this matter and not insist on it.

Sheikh: If there was anything unmannerly, it is finished. Now you have no choice but to reply. If you will not give a clear reply, either in the affirmative or in the negative, then I will be obliged to conclude that what you said was baseless.

Well-Wisher: There is nothing unmannerly in my remarks, but since you insist, I have no choice but to reveal the truth. Your great ulama’ agree that the Prophet's companions whose faith was not yet perfect often entertained doubts. Some of them maintained that doubt and apostasy. Some verses of the Holy Qur'an were revealed in their condemnation.

For instance, there were the munafiqin (hypocrites) in whose condemnation a full chapter of the Holy Qur'an was revealed. But such questions should not be discussed openly. I again ask you to refrain from pursuing this topic.

Sheikh: You mean that the great caliphs were among those who had doubts.

Well-Wisher: If my reply causes an unfortunate reaction among uninformed people, you are responsible. You have just said, "You say this or you say that." But again, it is your own ulama’ who have recorded these facts.

Sheikh: On which topic have they written, and on what occasion did caliphs express their doubt, and who were the persons who doubted? Please let us know.

Well-Wisher: Many people had serous doubts but returned to their original faith. Some of them persisted in their doubt. Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i, in his Manaqib, and Hafiz Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abi Nasr Hamidi in his Jam' Bainu's-Sahihain al-Bukhari, and Muslim write: "‘Umar Ibn Khattab said, 'I never doubted the prophethood of Muhammad as I did on the day of Hudaibiyya.'" This statement shows that he doubted Muhammad's prophethood more than once.

Nawab: Excuse me. What was the occasion in Hudaibiyya which prompted doubt about the Prophet?

Well-Wisher: The Prophet saw one night in a dream that he went to Mecca with his companions to perform the Umra. Next morning, when he related the dream to his companions, they asked him to interpret it. The Prophet said, "Allah willing, we shall go to Mecca and fulfill this performance."

But he did not specify the time for it. With the intention of visiting the House of Allah, the Prophet set out with his companions toward Mecca the same year. When they reached Hudaibiyya (a well near Mecca), the Quraish came there and prevented them from moving forward.

Since the Prophet had not gone there prepared to fight, he offered to make peace with them. A treaty was signed and the Prophet returned to Medina. On this occasion, ‘Umar had doubts. He went to the Prophet and said: "Are you not the Prophet of Allah and a truthful man? Did you not tell us that you would go to Mecca and perform the Umra and have your head shaved and beard trimmed? Why have you now failed to do this?"

The Holy Prophet asked him whether he had fixed the time for that or if he had told them that he would go there in the same year. ‘Umar admitted that the Prophet had not specified a time. The Prophet said that what he had told them was correct and, Allah willing, they would go to Mecca in the future and the dream would be realized.

Of course the time for the fulfillment of the interpretation, be it sooner or later, depends upon Allah's will. Then for confirmation of the statement of the Holy Prophet, Gabriel appeared and revealed the following verse of the Qur'an:

"Indeed Allah has fulfilled for His prophet the vision with truth (that) certainly you will enter the sacred Mosque, if Allah pleases, in security, with shaved head, (some) with their hair shortened, without fear; for He knew you knew not and He had ordained besides this a near victory." (48:27).

Victory, here, means the conquest of Khaibar. This was, in short, the event of Hudaibiyya, which was in fact a test for the faithful and for the wavering people.

At this stage there followed a discussion of whether to continue the discussions, in view of the schedule of the Sunni visitors from Afghanistan as well as Well-Wisher, the outcome of which was a decision to continue.

Seventh Session, Wednesday Night, 29th Rajab 1345 A.H.

Sayyid Abdu'l-Hayy (Imam of the Sunni Congregational Mosque): Some nights ago you made some statements for which Hafiz Sahib demanded proofs, but you cunningly evaded a reply or created confusion among us, and the whole matter was very disturbing.

Well-Wisher: Please let me know which of your questions was left unanswered, since I do not recall the incident to which you refer.

Sayyid: Did you not say some nights ago that ‘Ali had unity of 'self' with the Holy Prophet and so was superior in rank to all the prophets?

Well-Wisher: It is true. That was my statement, and it is my belief.

Sayyid: Then why did you not reply to our query?

Well-Wisher: You are greatly mistaken. It is strange that you have been listening closely throughout our discussions, yet now you accuse me of adopting cunning methods or confusing your minds. If you consider deeply, you will understand that I said nothing irrelevant, but the learned Mullas had put certain questions, which I was obliged to answer. Now if you have any question to put, you may do so, and with Allah's help, I will answer it.

Sayyid: We wish to know how it is possible that two individuals may be united so that their unity is such that they become one and the same.

Well-Wisher: Obviously, it is not possible for two persons to form a real unity. When I said that the Commander of the Faithful had a unity of 'self' or 'soul' with the Holy Prophet, you should not take it as actual unity, because no one has ever claimed that, and if anyone believed it they would be absolutely wrong. The unity I referred to is only assumed, not actual, and intends to indicate that both of them have the same excellence of soul and merits, not the same body.

Hafiz: Then according to this proposition they should both be prophets, and from what you say, the revelation should have come to them both.

Well-Wisher: That is a manifest misconception. No Shi’as holds such a belief. I would not have expected you to indulge in such talk and waste our time. I have just told you they are associated in all matters of virtue and excellence, excepting those attributes for the exclusion of which there are specific ordinances or grounds. Such an exception is prophethood with all the characteristics attached to it - one of them being the reception of revelation, and through it communication of the Divine Ordinances.

Perhaps you have forgotten my statements on previous nights, in which I proved through the hadith of Rank (Manzila) that ‘Ali possessed the rank of prophethood, but that he followed, and was subject to, the religion and the code prescribed by the Holy Prophet. His rank in prophethood was no more than the rank of Aaron in the time of Moses.

Hafiz: But if you believe in ‘Ali's equality with the Holy Prophet in all matters of virtue and excellence, it follows that you must believe in his equality in matters of prophethood and the characteristics attached to that.

Well-Wisher: It might seem so, but if you think carefully you will see that it is not so. As I have proved earlier from verses of the Qur'an, prophethood is of different ranks, and the prophets and Messengers of Allah are superior to one another in ranks. As the Holy Qur'an clearly says:

"These prophets, We have exalted some of them above the others." (2:253)

And the most perfect in rank of all the prophets is the special rank of Muhammad, as Allah says:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the prophet of Allah and the seal of the prophets." (33:40)

It is that perfection of prophethood which led to the sealing of prophethood. So in this attribute of perfection, none else could be included. In all other matters of excellence, there is association and equality, for which there are innumerable justifications.

Sayyid: Can you advance any argument from the Holy Qur'an to prove this assertion.

Well-Wisher: Of course, our first argument is from the Qur'an, which is the strongest Divine evidence, namely the Verse of Imprecation (Ayah al-Mubahala) in which Allah says:

"And to him who disputes with you therein after the knowledge has come to you, say 'Come, let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves and then let us invoke and lay the curse of Allah upon the liars.'" (3:60)

Your notable ulama’, such as Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, Imam Abu Ishaq Tha'labi, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti, Qazi Baidhawi, Jarullah Zamakhshari, Muslim ibn Hujjaj, and many others, have written that this Holy verse was revealed on the Day of Imprecation, which was the 24th or 25th of Dhu'l-Hijja in 9 AH.

When the Holy Prophet invited the Christians of Najran to Islam, they selected their most learned men like Sayyid, Aqib, Jasiq, Alqama, etc., numbering more than 70 and sent them to Medina with 300 of their followers, to meet the Holy Prophet and learn what Islam was. They entered into scholarly discussions with the Holy Prophet and were non-plussed by his cogent reasoning.

He proved the truthfulness of his mission from their own reliable sources and said that Jesus, himself, had through various signs predicted his (Muhammad's) arrival, and the Christians were awaiting the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jesus according to which such a man would appear riding a camel from the Faran hills (in Mecca) and would emigrate to a place between 'Ayr and Uhud (which was Medina).

These arguments strongly impressed the Christians, but their love of worldly position kept them from admitting the truth. Then the Holy Prophet informed them of Allah's command, which they agreed upon as the means of settling the discussion and for distinguishing between the truthful and the liars.

According to their mutual understanding, the next day the entire party of the Christians, including more than seventy of their scholars, waited outside the gates of Medina for the Holy Prophet. They expected him to come with pomp and circumstance and a large number of comrades to over-awe them. But when the gates opened, the Holy Prophet came forth with a young man on his right, a dignified woman on his left, and two children in front of him.

They remained under a tree, facing the Christians. Asqaf, the most learned man of the Christians, asked who those persons were who had come out with Muhammad. He was informed that the young man was his son-in-law and cousin, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the woman was his daughter, Fatima, and the two children were his daughter's sons, Hasan and Husain.

Addressing the Christians, their leader, Asqaf, said: "Look there, how confident Muhammad is! He has brought with him his nearest kindred, sons and dear ones, to this spiritual contest of imprecation. By God, if he had any doubt or fear about his stand, he would never have selected them. Now it is not advisable to enter the contest against them. Had we no fear of the Emperor of Rome, we would have embraced the faith of Islam. It would be expedient to compromise on their terms and return home."

All of them agreed with him. Accordingly, Asqaf sent a message to the Holy Prophet, saying: "We do not want to contest with you, but would like to make peace with you." The Prophet accepted their proposal.

The agreement was written by the Commander of the Faithful. The Christians agreed to pay an annual tribute in the form of 2,000 coats of mail, each worth about 40 dirhams (A dirham was equal to 1/2 ounce of gold), and 1,000 mithqals of gold (a mithqal was equal to 1/6 ounce). Half of this was to be paid in the month of Muharram and half in Rajab. The agreement having been signed by both parties, the Christians returned to their homes.

While they were on the way, one of their scholars named Aqib said to his companions: "By God, you and I know that this Muhammad is the same prophet of God who was the expected one, and whatever he says is from God. I swear by God that whoever has contended with a Prophet of God was ruined, and none of their young or old remained alive.

Surely, if we had contended with them, all of us would have been killed and no Christians would have survived in the world. By God, when I looked at them I saw faces which, if they invoked God, would have moved mountains."

Hafiz: What you have said is quite true and is accepted by all Muslims, but it has no bearing on our topic, namely, that ‘Ali was spiritually united with the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: I argue from the word 'ourselves' in this Holy verse, since from this even many questions are resolved. First, the cause of truth preached by the Holy Prophet is proved. That is, if he had not been on the side of truth, he would not have dared to come out for the contest nor would the great Christians have run away from the field of Mubahala. Second, this even proves that Hasan and Husain were sons of the Prophet of Allah, as I have already mentioned in my talk on the first night.

Third, it proves that the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain were spiritually the most exalted persons of the whole of creation and the most beloved ones of the Holy Prophet, as even the bigoted and fanatic ulama’ of your sect, like Zamakhshari, Baidhawi, and Fakhru'd-Din Razi, and others have written in their books.

Particularly Jarullah Zamkhshari, writing about this Holy verse, gives explanatory details about the gathering of these panjetan ('five bodies') and says that this verse is the strongest proof of the excellence of the Ashab-i-Ayba, the five persons who had gathered under a blanket with the Holy Prophet.

Fourth, it shows that the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, surpassed all other companions of the Holy Prophet in merit and rank, because Allah has called him in this Holy verse the soul of the Prophet. Obviously, the word "ourselves" does not mean the Holy Prophet's own self, because to summon means to summon somebody else; a man is never asked to summon himself. Hence the word refers to somebody else who is like the Prophet's own self or soul.

And since, according to the unanimous view of reliable commentators and traditionists of both sects, no one else except ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain were present with the Holy Prophet at the imprecation, the phrase in the Holy verse, "our sons and your sons, our women and your women" refer, respectively, to Hasan and Husain and Bibi Fatima and the other person, who could be identified as "ourselves" in the Holy group was the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali. Hence, this word "ourselves" proves the unity of self between the Prophet Muhammad and ‘Ali.

Since actual unity of two souls is impossible, Allah's calling ‘Ali the 'self' of the Prophet Muhammad means an assumed unity of the two selves.

You are well aware that basically it is better to identify a word with a near assumption that with a distant one, and the nearest assumption means association in all merits excepting those which have been excluded by some particular reason. And we have already told you that it is the Holy Prophet's special prophethood and the granting of Wahi (Revelation) on him which are peculiar to him.

Hence, we do not consider ‘Ali his associate in regard to these two characteristics. But according to this Holy verse, ‘Ali shares with the Holy Prophet in all other merits, and assuredly the All-Gracious Allah endowed ‘Ali through the Holy Prophet with all His blessings. This in itself proves the union of their souls, which we wanted to establish.

Hafiz: Why do you insist that the verse does not mean the summoning of his own 'self'? Why isn't this supposition better than the other assumption?

Well-Wisher: I hope you will not waste time in illogical talk and digress from the course of justice. In fact justice demands that when we have settled a point, we should move forward. I did not expect a man of your rank and learning to indulge in such a false argument.

As you know yourself and according to all men of learning, one self is identified with another self by way of assumption. Among literary men it is common to claim an assumed association, as I have stated earlier.

It is often seen that one person says to another: "You are my own life and soul." Particularly in the language of hadith and narratives, this relationship has often been stated about the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali, and every such narration taken separately is a proof to establish the truth of my point of view.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in Musnad, Ibn Maghazili, the Shafi'i theologian, in his Manaqib, and Muwafiq Ibn Ahmad Khawarizmi in his Manaqib, narrate that the Holy Prophet said, "‘Ali is from me, and I am from ‘Ali; he who loves him, loves me; and he who loves me, loves Allah."

Also Ibn Maja in his Sunan, Part I, p. 92; Tirmidhi in his Sahih; Ibn Hajar in Tradition v of Forty Traditions concerning the merits of the Commander of the Faithful narrated in the Sawa'iq from Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tirmidhi, Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i, and Ibn Maja; Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad, v.4, p.164;

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in chapter 67 of Kifayatu't-Talib from the Musnad of Ibn Samak, v. 4, and the Mu'jim Kabir of Tibrani; and Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in Khasa'is, and Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanbiu'l-Mawaddat from the Mishkat - all have related from Jash Ibn Junada as-Saluni that during the farewell pilgrimage, the Holy Prophet said at 'Arafa: "‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali. Nobody recompenses me (that is no one discharges the duty of my mission) except me and ‘Ali."

Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawaddat, Ch vii, narrates from Zawa'id al-Musnad of Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said to Ummu'l-Mo'minin Salma "‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali. His flesh and blood is from my flesh and blood. He is to me as Aaron was to Moses. O Umm Salma! Listen, and be a witness that this ‘Ali is the master and lord of the Muslims."

Hamidi in his Jam' Bainu's-Sahihain and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe-Nahju'l-Balagha narrate that the Holy Prophet said "‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali. ‘Ali is to me as the head is to the body; one who obeys him, obeys me; and one who obeys me, obeys Allah."

Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamdani, the Shafi'i theologian, in Muwadda viii of Muwaddatu'l-Qurba narrate from the Holy Prophet who said:

"Verily, Almighty Allah helped this faith of Islam through ‘Ali, since he is from me, and I am from him, and this Holy verse was revealed for him - 'Is he then like him who has a clear proof from his Lord and follows a witness (like ‘Ali) from Him?'" (11:17)

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi has specified in the 7th chapter of his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda this very topic under the caption: "About ‘Ali's being like the self of the Holy Prophet and the tradition that ‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali.'" In this chapter he has narrated 24 traditions in different ways and with different words from the Holy Prophet, who said that ‘Ali was like his own self.

Toward the end of the chapter he narrates a tradition from the Manaqib as reported by Jabir, who said that he had heard from the Holy Prophet that Hazrat ‘Ali possessed such characteristics that if someone possessed only one of them, it would have been enough to establish his dignity and excellence, and by those characteristics were meant the sayings of the Holy Prophet about him such as:

"For whomsoever I am the Master, this ‘Ali is his Master," or "‘Ali is to me as Aaron was to Moses," or "‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali," or "‘Ali is to me as my self is to me, obedience to him is obedience to me," or "Fighting against ‘Ali is fighting against Allah, and peace with ‘Ali is peace with Allah," or "A friend of ‘Ali is a friend of Allah, and ‘Ali's enemy is Allah's enemy," or "‘Ali is Allah's Hujjat (proof) over His servants," or "Love for ‘Ali is faith and enmity against him is infidelity," or "‘Ali's party is the party of Allah, and the party of his enemies is the party of Satan," or "‘Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with me, they are inseparable," or "‘Ali is the distributor of Paradise and Hell," or "One who remained aloof from ‘Ali remained aloof from me, and one who remained aloof from me remained aloof from Allah," or "The partisans of ‘Ali will be rescued on the Day of Judgment."

Finally, he quotes another detailed tradition from the Manaqib at the end of which the Holy Prophet says: "I swear by Allah, Who bestowed Prophethood upon me and made me the choicest of His creations: O ‘Ali! Verily you are Allah's Hujjat (proof) for the people, His trustee, knower of His secrets, and His Caliph over His servants."

There are many such hadith in your books. The word "ourselves" clearly shows the nearest association between the Prophet and ‘Ali in all matters of excellence. I think that this verse is the most confincing proof of my point of view. Moreover, your second question is answered by the same verse. We have proven that, with the exception of Prophethood and Wahi (revelation), which apply only to the Prophet, ‘Ali was associated with him in all matters of excellence.

It also follows that in meritorious characteristics, ‘Ali was superior to the companions and to everyone else in the community. In fact, this verse also proves that he excelled all other previous prophets, just as the Prophet excelled all other prophets.

In Ihya'u'l-Ulum by Imam Ghazali, Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, the Tafsir by Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, and Tafsirs by Jarullah Zamakhshari, Baidhawi, Nishapuri, etc., you will find this hadith of the Holy Prophet: "The ulama’ of my community are like the prophets of the Bani Isra'il."

In another hadith he said: "The ulama’ of the Prophet's community were equal to or better than the prophets of the Bani Isra'il simply because their source of knowledge was that fountainhead of learning, the Prophet Muhammad.

Therefore, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib was definitely superior to the prophets, since the Prophet said: "I am the city of knowledge, and ‘Ali is its gate." He also said: I am the house of wisdom and ‘Ali is its gate." When ‘Ali, himself, was asked about this topic, he explained some aspects of his superiority to the prophets of the Children of Isra'il.

On the 20th of Ramadhan, when ‘Ali was on his death bed following the attack by Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi, he asked Imam Hasan to call in the Shi’as who had gathered at the door of his house.

When they entered, they surrounded his bed and wept silently. ‘Ali said: You may ask any question you like before I leave you, but your questions should be brief." One of those present was Sa'sa'a Ibn Suwhan. Your own great ulama’, like Ibn Abdu'l-Birr and Ibn Sa'ad, have written about his life and character, have relied on him, confirming that he was a man of great learning.

Sa'sa'a said to ‘Ali: "Let me know who is superior, you or Adam." The Holy Imam said: "It is not proper for a man to praise himself, but according to the maxim: 'Declare the blessings that Allah has given you,' I tell you that I am superior to Adam." When asked why this was so, ‘Ali explained that Adam had every means of mercy, comfort, and blessings for him in paradise. He was asked simply to abstain from the forbidden food. But he could not restrain himself, and he ate from the tree.

As a result, he was expelled from paradise. Allah did not forbid him, ‘Ali, from eating wheat (which, according to Muslim belief was the forbidden 'tree'). But since he had no inclination towards this temporal world, he voluntarily refrained from eating wheat. (The point of ‘Ali's remark was that excellence of a man before Allah lies in piety and devotion, and that the height of piety lies in abstaining even from what is permissible.)

Sa'sa'a asked: "Who is superior, you or Noah?" ‘Ali replied: "I am superior. Noah called his men to worship Allah, but they did not obey. Their shameful mistreatment was torture to him. He cursed them and invoked Allah: 'O my Lord! Leave not on the earth a single person of the unjust ones.' After the death of the Prophet, even though the people caused me extreme difficulty, I never cursed them. I suffered their torment with patience."

'My Lord! Show me how Thou Givest life to the dead.' He said: 'What! do you not believe?' He said: 'Yes, but that my heart may be at ease.' (2:260)

My faith was such that I said: 'If the veil over the unseen were lifted, my faith would not increase."

Sa'as'a asked: "Who is superior, you or Moses?" The Holy Imam replied: "I am superior, for when Almighty Allah ordered Moses to go to Egypt to invite Pharaoh to the truth, Moses said:

'My Lord! Surely I killed one of them, so I am afraid that they will slay me. And my brother Aaron, he is more eloquent of tongue than I. Therefore send him with me as an aide, to help me. Surely I fear that they will reject me." (28:33-34)

The Holy Prophet ordered me, by the command of Allah, to go to Mecca and to recite the verses of the Chapter 'Al-Bara'a' from the top of the Ka'ba to the Quraish infidels. I was not afraid, even though there were few people there who had not lost a near relative by my sword. Obeying his order, I performed my duty alone. I recited the verses of 'Al-Bara'a' and returned."

Sa'sa'a asked: "Who is superior, you or Jesus?" ‘Ali said: "I am superior, for when Mary became pregnant by the Grace of Allah, and the time of her delivery approached, a revelation was granted to her: 'Leave this Holy House for this is a House for prayers, not a place for the delivery of children.' Accordingly, she left the Holy House and went to the wilderness where she gave birth to Jesus.

But when my mother, Fatima Bint al-Asad, felt labor pains within the precincts of the Holy Ka'ba, she clung to the wall and prayed to Allah in the name of that House and the builder of that House, to lessen her pain. Soon a fissure appeared in the wall, and my mother heard a mysterious voice telling her, "O Fatima! Enter the House of the Ka'ba.' She went in, and I was born inside of the Holy Ka'ba."

It is also recorded in the books of your ulama’ that ‘Ali was the mirror of the high qualities of all the prophets. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume XI, page 449, Hafiz Abu Bakr Faqih Shafi'i, Ahmad Ibn Husain Baihaqi in Manaqib, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad, Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in Tafsir al-Kabir in connection with the verse of Mubahala, Muhyi'd-Din Ibn Arabi in Yawaqit-o-Jawahir, Issue 32, page 172;

And Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 23, have narrated from the Holy Prophet with slight differences of words here and there, saying: "Whoever wishes to see the knowledge of Adam, the piety of Noah, the submission of Abraham, the sublimity of Moses, or the devotion of Jesus, may look upon ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib."

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani has narrated the same hadith with some additions, in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda VIII. He narrates from Jabir that the Prophet said: "Verily, Allah has combined ninety qualities of the prophets in ‘Ali, which He has not given to anyone else." The great Hafiz Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, after quoting this hadith, makes this comment: "‘Ali was similar to Adam in knowledge in that Allah taught Adam everything, as He says in the Holy Qur'an,

'And He taught Adam All the names....'" (2:31)

Similarly, ‘Ali had knowledge of all things. Because of knowledge which came directly from Allah, Adam was granted the vicegerency of Allah, as the Holy Qur'an says:

"...I am going to place in the earth a Caliph...." (2:30)

Since Adam's knowledge led to his superiority, so that even the angels prostrated themselves in obeisance to him, ‘Ali was also most exalted of the whole creation and the caliph after the Prophet. ‘Ali's knowledge is similar to Noah's in that ‘Ali was vehement against the infidels and compassionate toward the believers.

Allah praised him in the Holy Qur'an:

"...And those who are with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves." (48:29)

This is another proof that this verse was revealed in praise of ‘Ali, as I have said earlier. Noah was very harsh towards the infidels, as the Holy Qur'an says:

"And Noah said: 'My Lord! Leave not upon the land any dweller from among the unbelievers.'" (71:26)

‘Ali was similar to Abraham in tenderness of heart. The Holy Qur'an says of Abraham:

"Most surely, Abraham was very tender-hearted." (9:114)

‘Ali possessed all the qualities and attributes, which the other prophets possessed individually. This unanimously acknowledged hadith proves that ‘Ali possessed the highest virtues, each of which was equivalent to the most exalted qualities of the prophets. Obviously, one who possessed the highest virtues of all the prophets excelled all others in rank.

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 40, quotes from Manaqib of Khawarizmi through Muhammad Ibn Mansur, who said that he heard Ahmad Ibn Hanbal say, "There were no such praises for any of the companions of the Prophet, as there were for ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib." Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i also narrates words to the same effect.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Sharhe-Nahju'l Balagha, Volume I, page 46, says: "‘Ali was the most fitting person for the position of Wilaya (guardianship) by virtue of his excellence. With the exception of the Prophet of Allah, he was the most deserving person for the office of caliph."

‘Ali was certainly most deserving of the caliphate, but he was cast aside by the political maneuvering of lesser men. At least they should have informed ‘Ali that they were convening a meeting at Saqifa Bani Sa'da to deliberate on the important issue of electing a Caliph. They did not do so in order to deprive him of his right of succession.

Hafiz: Are we unjust or you? You say that the Prophet's companions elected those who usurped the caliphate. Of course you think we are all fools who blindly follow our ancestors. But what proof is stronger than Ijma, general consensus? All the companions and umma, including ‘Ali, appointed Abu Bakr and swore allegiance to him. Obviously common agreement by the people is final, and agreeing to it is compulsory.

The Prophet said: "My people do not agree in error; my people do not agree in deviation from the right path." So we have not followed our ancestors blindly. The fact is that on the first day after the Prophet's death, the community unanimously decided in a meeting to elect Abu Bakr as Caliph. Because it was a settled fact, we should acknowledge it.

Well-Wisher: Please let us know on what grounds is the caliphate based?

Hafiz: It is obvious. The best proof for the existence of the caliphate after the Prophet is the ijma (general consensus) of the umma through which the caliphate came into being. Apart from this, the best qualification for Abu Bakr and ‘Umar for the caliphate was their maturity. ‘Ali, for all his virtues and nearness to the Prophet, had to be passed over because of his youth. And, to be just and fair, it was not appropriate for a youth to override the claims of the mature companions.

And we do not regard this passing over of ‘Ali as a defeat for him, for his excellence is otherwise generally accepted. There is also a hadith narrated by Caliph ‘Umar from the Prophet, who said: "Prophethood and leadership are not combined in one family." Accordingly, ‘Ali was denied the caliphate because he belonged to the Prophet's family. He was not eligible for that office.

Well-Wisher: I'm astounded that you can put forward such silly arguments. First, you said that ijma, the consensus of the umma, is the most valid reasoning, and in support of your point you narrated a hadith. The word "ummai" means "my umma," so the hadith (supposing it to be true) means that when the whole umma agrees to something, the decision cannot be wrong. I cannot accept this. Allah has distinguished this umma by virtue of the fact that among them there shall be a rightly guided sect. A vicegerent of Allah will be among them.

When the umma gathers together, that rightly guided sect will be among them. But this hadith (even if genuine) does not furnish any evidence that the Prophet surrendered his own right and authorized the umma to appoint the caliph. And even if the Prophet had left it to his umma to choose the caliph, this right is assigned to the entire umma. Since all Muslims benefit from the caliphate, they should have the right to express their opinion in the choice of a caliph.

Accordingly, the assembly of the whole umma after the death of the Prophet would have been necessary so that, with their common consent, a perfect man might be appointed as the caliph. Was there was such an assembly of Muslims? Was this the way Abu Bakr came to the caliphate?

Hafiz: Abu Bakr remained in the office of the caliphate for a little more than two years. During this period Muslims in general swore allegiance to him and obeyed him. This in itself means unanimity of opinion among them, which is a proof of legitimacy.

Well-Wisher: You are trying to skirt the issue. My question was not about the whole period of Abu Bakr. I asked about the decision made under the roof (Saqifa) of Bani Sa'da. Did the gathering there comprise the whole umma, or were there only a few people who took the oath of allegiance?

Hafiz: Obviously there were only a few of the Prophet's prominent companions, but later ijma did take place.

Well-Wisher: Did the Prophet, the most fit person to guide the umma, surrender his right in favor of his umma? Did he surrender his right so that the people of the Aus clan, who were hostile to the Khazraj clan, might take the oath of fealty for fear of their opponents coming to power? Did he abandon his right so that his people could form a government based on fear and greed?

Can you call such a small group of people a community? Didn't the Muslims of Mecca, Yeman, Jeddah, and other cities belong to the umma? Didn't they have a right to give their opinion regarding the caliphate? If there was no conspiracy, why didn't they wait to find out the viewpoint of all Muslims in such an important matter as the caliphate? In this way, the ijma in its true sense might have been achieved.

Even today, in order to establish a democratic state or to select a nation's leader of a nation, general elections are held. Citizens cast their votes and the leader is selected by majority vote. Leaders of civilized countries and all cultured people would scoff at the crude proceedings of your "ijma."

Hafiz: Why are you indulging in unpleasant talk? Ijma means that there was a gathering of intelligent people and prominent companions who assembled in the Saqifa.

Well-Wisher: You say that ijma meant that there was an assembly of intellectuals and distinguished companions of the Prophet, but you have no basis for this assertion except the hadith you cited. Where do the hadith mention intellectuals or distinguished companions? I repeat that the word "ummai" means the entire umma, not a limited number of companions, even though they be learned.

Even if what you say is correct, that "ijma" means "the assembly of intellectuals and distinguished companions," were the intelligentsia and the companions of the Prophet confined only to those few people who assembled under the small roof on that day? Were there no other intelligent people and distinguished companions in the Muslim world? And did they, unanimously vote for the caliph?

Hafiz: Since the matter of the caliphate was a serious affair, the people were afraid that some disturbance might arise. It was not possible to inform Muslims in other places. When Abu Bakr and ‘Umar heard that some Ansars had gathered there, they also went there to talk. Because ‘Umar was a seasoned statesman, he considered it desirable for the umma to swear the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Others followed him and offered the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, but a faction of the Ansars and the people of the Khazraj clan, supporting Sa'd Ibn Ubaida, did not swear the oath of allegiance and left the Saqifa. That was why they made haste.

Well-Wisher: So you also acknowledge, as your prominent historians and ulama’ have acknowledged that on the day of Saqifa, when the basic proceedings were held, there was no ijma. Abu Bakr, for reasons of political expediency, proposed the names of ‘Umar and Abu Ubaida Ibn Jarra, and they too, returning the proposal, suggested the name of Abu Bakr, telling him that he was the most qualified for the position. They immediately swore allegiance to him.

Some of the Aus clan also present took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr in view of their hostility against the Khazraj clan, and also because they feared that Sa'd ibn Ubaida might otherwise become the Amir. In this way support gradually grew wider.

However, if ijma were a strong argument to be relied upon, they should have waited until the whole umma - or, as you said: the intelligentsia - had gathered there, to achieve the entire community's consensus.

Hafiz: I told you that fear of disturbances forced the group to act. The people of Aus and Khazraj clans had assembled in Saqifa and were confronting each other. Each of them wanted to decide the sovereignty of the Muslim state for itself.

Well-Wisher: I agree with what you say. Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari (see his Ta'rikh, Volume II, page 457) and others have written that the Muslims had not assembled under the Saqifa to elect their caliph. The Aus and Khazraj wanted to appoint an Amir for themselves. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar benefited from their differences. If they had really gathered together to discuss the caliphate, they should have surely invited all Muslims to express their opinion in the matter.

As you said, they were not in a position to inform all Muslims, and time was running short. It was true that they had no immediate access to Mecca, Yemen, Ta'if, or the other distant Muslim cities. But had they no means of approach even to Usama Ibn Zaid's army, which was encamped near Medina? Couldn't they have informed the notable companions of the Prophet who were there? One of them was a distinguished personality, the commander of the Muslim army, appointed by the Holy Prophet himself. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were subordinate to him.

When Usama heard that through a conspiracy three persons had appointed the caliph without consulting other people or even informing them, and that they had sworn fealty to one man, he rode his horse to the door of the mosque and cried aloud: "What is all this uproar? With whose permission have you appointed a caliph? What was the significance of a handful of people who, without consulting the companions, appointed a caliph?"

‘Umar stepped forward to appease him and said: "Usama! The work is finished. The oath of allegiance has been sworn. Do not create discord now among the people. Take the oath of fealty yourself." Usama became angry. "The Prophet made me your Amir," he said. "How is it possible that the Amir appointed by the Prophet should pay homage to the subordinates who were placed under his command?" Although much more happened this much is sufficient to make my point.

If you say that Usama's army was also at a distance from the city and that time was running short, will you also claim that the distance from the Saqifa and mosque to the residence of the Prophet was also great? Why didn't they inform ‘Ali, or Abbas the respected uncle of the Prophet? Why didn't they consult the Bani Hashim, the descendants of the Holy Prophet?

Hafiz: In all probability the situation at that time was so tense that they dared not be careless and leave the Saqifa.

Well-Wisher: Excuse me, they had time. They deliberately avoided informing ‘Ali, the Bani Hashim, and the distinguished companions.

Hafiz: How can you say that they deliberately did not inform them?

Well-Wisher: One obvious indication is that ‘Umar came to the door of the Prophet's house but did not enter it.

Hafiz: Assuredly this story is fabricated by the Rafizis.

Well-Wisher: Look at page 456 of the Ta'rikh, Volume II by Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, one of your eminent ulama’. He writes that ‘Umar came to the door of the Prophet's house but did not enter. He sent a message to Abu Bakr: "Come immediately; I have urgent business with you." Abu Bakr sent word to him that he had no time. ‘Umar sent another message: "We are faced with a crisis. Your presence is necessary."

Abu Bakr came out and ‘Umar told him secretly about the gathering of the Ansars in the Saqifa and said that they should immediately go there. Both departed, and on the way they met Abu Ubaida and took him with them. For Allah's sake, be fair. If they had not hatched a conspiracy, why did ‘Umar go to the door of the house of the Prophet but not enter it?

They could have asked for help. Was there in the whole umma only Abu Bakr, who was all wisdom, and were the other companions and the descendants of the Prophet aliens who did not deserve to be informed about this matter?

Was this ijma of yours rightfully constituted by three men? Where in any part of the world is such a procedure acceptable? Suppose that three people or any group of people, assemble in a city and form an ijma and appoint the head of the state. Is it incumbent on the ulama’ and intellectuals of all other cities or towns to obey them? Or even if some intelligent and learned men who have not been selected by others give an opinion, is it necessary that the rest of the intelligentsia follow them?

Is it proper to suppress the feelings of the entire nation through the intimidating behavior of one group of people? If on the other hand, in learned discourses, a group of people reveals that the caliphate was not justified by religious or natural law, is it right to call them Rafizis?

You say that the Holy Prophet left the issue of the caliphate to the umma or to the "intelligentsia" of the umma, as you call it. Was the intelligentsia of the umma composed of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu Ubaida Jarra. Each proposed the name of the other, and then two of them acknowledged the third. That was all. Is it obligatory for all Muslims to follow them? "Minority," "majority," and "ijma" mean quite different things.

If a consultative meeting is held for the consideration of some particular problem, and a smaller number of people give one opinion, while the larger number gives another opinion, then it is said that one is the opinion of the minority. The opinion of the larger number is called the opinion of the majority, and if all of them (without a single exception) give a unanimous opinion, it is called ijma.

Was an ijma reached in the Saqifa or later in the mosque, or after that in the city of Medina? If, however, in deference to your wishes, we take away the rights of the general umma and say that the opinion of the intelligentsia and the Prophet's companions was sufficient for ijma, I ask whether there was an ijma in which all intelligentsia and the Prophet's distinguished companions participated? Did the small group at the Saqifa unanimously agree in its opinion?

The reply must be in the negative. The author of Mawaqif has himself admitted that there was no ijma during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and there was certainly no unanimity of opinion among the learned people in Medina, either. Sa'd Ibn Ubaida Ansari, his descendants, distinguished companions of the Prophet, all the Bani Hashim, their friends, and ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, - all opposed Abu Bakr for six months.

These people never did take the oath of fealty to him. In Medina, the seat of prophethood, no ijma was reached in which the intellectuals and the companions supported Abu Bakr as Caliph. Your own great historians, like Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim, recorded that ijma never occurred in Medina.

The Bani Hashim, the Bani Umayya, and the companions in general - except the three people mentioned above - were not present in the Saqifa to cast their vote. Moreover, many strongly opposed the decision. In fact, some prominent companions, who rejected the allegiance at the Saqifa, went to the mosque and protested to Abu Bakr. Of the Muhajirs were Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dharr Ghifari, Miqdad Ibn Aswad Kindi, Ammar al-Yasir, Buraida Aslami, and Khalid Ibn Sa'id Ibn As Amawi.

Of the Ansars were Abu'l-Hathama ibn Tihan, Khuzaima Ibn Thabit Dhu'sh-Shahadatain, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Ubai Ibn Ka'b, Sahl Ibn Hunaif, Uthman Ibn Hunaif, who remonstrated with Abu Bakr inside the mosque. I have given only this brief outline of events. No ijma of any kind was reached. The ijma of the intellectuals and the prominent companions of Medina is a flagrant lie.

Based on your own sources, I will give you a list of names of some of those who opposed the caliphate. Ibn Hajar Asqalani and Baladhuri, each in his Ta'rikh, Muhammad Ibn Khawind Shah in his Rauzatu's-Safa, Ibn Abdu'l-Birr in his Isti'ab, and others say that Sa'd Ibn Ubaida and a part of Khazrajis and a group of Quraish did not swear the oath of fealty to Abu Bakr.

Moreover, eighteen people who were prominent and distinguished companions of the Holy Prophet did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. They were Shi’as of ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib. The names of those eighteen people are as follows:

Weren't these people the intellectuals of the umma? ‘Ali, Abbas, the uncle of the Holy Prophet and other distinguished persons of the Bani Hashim - weren't these people wise and trustworthy? What kind of ijma was it, which was held without the consultation of these people? When Abu Bakr is selected secretly and other prominent companions are not informed, does this constitute ijma? Or is it political conspiracy?

Moreover, the Bani Hashim, the Prophet's family, were not present at the Saqifa. The precious value of their judgement cannot be denied in view of the hadith narrated on earlier nights, and acknowledged by both sects.

The Holy Prophet said: "I leave with you two great things: the Book of Allah (The Holy Qur'an) and my Ahlul Bayt (members of the Holy family: ‘Ali, Fatima, and their issue). If you cling to these two, never, never shall you go astray after me."

These people did not support the caliphate of Abu Bakr. In addition, there is another famous hadith known as hadith al-Safina (Hadith of the Ark), which I have mentioned on previous nights. The Prophet said: "My Ahlul Bayt is like the ark of Noah. He who boards it is saved, and he who turns away from it drowned."

This hadith indicates that, just as Noah's community was saved from the great flood by his ark, our Prophet's community will be saved from disasters by attachment to the members of the Prophet's Holy family.

Ibn Hajar in his Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, page 50, commenting on verse IV, quotes two hadith from Ibn Sa'd about the obligation to follow the Holy Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet. In one hadith the Prophet said: "I and my Ahlul Bayt are a tree of Paradise whose branches are in the earth; so one who seeks the path towards Allah should attach himself to them."

In a second hadith the Prophet said: "Among my umma in every age there are just people from my Ahlul Bayt who purge the impurities brought into religion by the wrong-doers and who wash away the false claims of the transgressors and the commentaries of ignorant people. Be it known to you that your Imams are certainly those who will guide you to Allah; so you should be careful about those you take to be your guides." The substance of hadith of this kind is that the Prophet said to his community: "Unless you follow my Ahlul Bayt, enemies will lead you astray."

The people who could influence ijma, the allegiance, and the appointment of the caliphs, were opposed to the procedure you have described. So what sort of ijma was that? The notable companions, intellectuals, and the progeny of the Prophet were in Medina at the time of the Saqifa. So there is no doubt that the matter was not decided by a majority vote, not to mention ijma.

Ibn Abdu'l-Birr Qartabi, a learned man of your sect, in his Isti'ab, Ibn Hajar in his Isaba, and other ulama’ write that Sa'd Ibn Ubaida, who was a claimant to the caliphate, categorically refused to take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

He did not want to set off a commotion, so he set out for Syria. According to a report in Rauzatu's-Safa, on the instigation of a prominent man he was murdered. According to historians, the man who committed the crime was Khalid Ibn Walid. After killing Malik Ibn Buwaira and marrying his wife, during the early days of Abu Bakr's caliphate, he was the object of ‘Umar's wrath. When ‘Umar became Caliph, Khalid, attempting to earn his favor, killed Sa'd Ibn Ubaida.

Hafiz: Since there was danger of a disturbance, and they could not have access to the whole umma, they necessarily had to depend on those few people who were present in the Saqifa where the oath of allegiance was taken. Later the umma consented to it.

Well-Wisher: If they had no access to the distinguished companions of the Prophet, and the intellectuals of the nation who were outside Medina, please tell us honestly: if there had been no plotting in this case, why didn't they invite those present in Medina to the meeting at the Saqifa? Wasn't it necessary for them to take counsel with Abbas, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, and the Bani Hashim? Was the opinion of ‘Umar and Abu Ubaida Ibn Jarra sufficient for the whole Islamic world?

Your argument based on ijma, whether it is general or specific, is untenable. The intellectuals and the prominent companions did not participate in it, they opposed it. As I said: "ijma" means that not a single person disagrees with others. In this "ijma," you have admitted the intelligentsia in general did not take part. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in his Nihayatu'l-Usul says that there was no ijma or consensus in the caliphate of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar until after the murder of Sa'd Ibn Ubaida.

I fail to understand how you can call this imaginary ijma a proof for the rightfulness of the caliphate. Your second claim, that Abu Bakr was older than ‘Ali and was therefore better qualified for the caliphate, is weaker than the first argument.

If age were a condition for the caliphate, there were many men older than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Certainly Abu Qahafa, Abu Bakr's father was older than his son, and was alive at the time. Why wasn't he appointed caliph?

Hafiz: Abu Bakr's age, coupled with his ability, made him the appropriate choice. When there was an old, experienced loved one of the Prophet present in the nation, an inexperienced youth could not be entrusted with leadership.

Well-Wisher: If that were true, then the target of your objection is the Prophet himself. When he left for his Tabuk expedition, the hypocrites secretly planned to revolt in Medina in his absence. Therefore, he appointed an experienced man in his place in order to control the situation in Medina and to foil the hypocrites' plans. I ask you to tell us who the Prophet left in his place in Medina as his successor and caliph.

Hafiz: It is well known that he made ‘Ali his caliph and successor.

Well-Wisher: Weren't Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and other older companions in Medina at that time? Yes. And yet the Prophet made a young man, ‘Ali, his Caliph and successor. For the recitation of some of the verses of the Chapter Al-Bara'a (The Immunity), of the Holy Qur'an to the people of Mecca, one would perhaps think, an experienced man should have been appropriate. But the Holy Prophet called the older Abu Bakr back from his half-completed journey and commanded the younger ‘Ali to perform this important task.

The Prophet said that Allah had told him that the one to convey the Holy Qur'an should be him, (the Holy Prophet) or someone who was of him. Similarly, for the guidance of the people of Yemen, why did the Holy Prophet send the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali instead of the more experienced Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or others who were present there? On many other similar occasions the Holy Prophet, in the presence of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and others, selected ‘Ali to perform momentous tasks.

It follows that your insistence on chronological maturity is baseless. The essential condition for the caliphate is merit. It has just occurred to me that the strongest proof for the rejection of the caliphate of these people is the opposition to the so-called ijma by ‘Ali, who, according to the Prophet, was the distinguisher between right and wrong. Your notable ulama’ have narrated a number of hadith in this regard.

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 16 quoting from Kitabu's-Sabi'in Fi Faza'il al-Amiru'l-Mu'minin, Imamu'l-Haram Abu Ja'far Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Shafi'i, in hadith XII related from Firdaus of Dailami of the seventy hadith, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda - VI, Hafiz in his Amali, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 44, relate, with slight difference in wording, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, Abi Laila Ghifari, and Abu Dharr Ghifari that the Holy Prophet said (the last phrase being the same in every narration):

"Soon after my departure from this world, there will arise a disturbance. When it happens, you should follow ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib since he will be the first person to see me and clasp hands with me on the Day of Judgement. He is exalted in rank and he is the distinguisher between right and wrong."

When the Prophet died, a great disturbance arose. The Muhajirs and Ansars wanted to have the caliph from their party. According to the instruction of the Prophet, the umma should have brought in ‘Ali so that he might separate truth from falsehood.

Hafiz: This hadith has a single line of narration and is therefore unreliable.

Well-Wisher: I have already replied to your objection concerning a single narration. The Sunni ulama’ regard such hadith as valid arguments, so you cannot reject it on that ground. Apart from that, it is not the only hadith on this point.

There are many such reports related by your own ulama’ which point to the same meaning, some of which I referred to on previous nights. In view of our time constraints, I will confine myself to mentioning here only the names of some of the authors.

One of these reports is narrated by Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul, Tabari in his Kabir, Baihaqi in his Sunan, Nuru'd-Din Maliki in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, Hakim in his Mustadrak, Hafiz Abu Na'im in his Hilya, Ibn Asakir in his Ta'rikh, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Tabrani in his Ausat, Muhibu'd-Din in his Riyaz, Hamwaini in his Fara'id, Suyuti in his Durr al-Mansur, from Ibn Abbas, Salman, Abu Dharr and Hudhaifa - all report that the Holy Prophet, pointing with his hand to ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, said:

"Verily, this ‘Ali is the first person who declared his faith in me and the first who will shake hands with me on the Day of Judgement. He is Siddiq al-Akbar (the greatest speaker of truth) and the Faruq of this umma (The Discernment of this Community). He will distinguish between right and wrong."

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji in Chapter 44 of his Kifayatu't-Talib narrates the same hadith with the addition of these words: "And he is the ruler over the faithful and he is my gate for the faithful to pass through; and he is my caliph (successor) after me." Ganji Shafi'i says that Muhaddith al-Sham (a traditionist of Syria) has three hundred hadith in praise of ‘Ali. It has also been recorded by Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul, Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, Sam'ani in Faza'ilu's-Sahaba.

Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma, Khatib Baghdadi in Ta'rikh al-Baghdad, Volume XIV, page 21, Hafiz Mardawaih in Manaqib, Dailami in Firdaus, Ibn Qutayba in Imamate wa's-Siyasa, Volume I, page 111, Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Imam Ahmad in Musnad and many other members of your ulama’ have narrated that the Holy Prophet said "‘Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali wherever he turns." In the same books, there is another hadith also reported by Sheikh Sulayman Qanduzi Hanafi, in Chapter 20 of Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, from Hamwaini that the Holy Prophet said: "‘Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali."

Hafiz Abi Nu'aim Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Ispahani in his Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Volume I, page 63, narrates that the Prophet said: "O party of Ansar! Shall I guide you towards a person that if you adhere to him, you will never go astray?' All of them, said: 'Yes, O Prophet of Allah,' The Holy Prophet said: 'That person is ‘Ali. Love him as you love me, and respect him as you respect me; what I have told you was Allah's command related to me by Gabriel."

The general objective of these hadith is to indicate the Prophet's preference regarding his successor. The Prophet ordered his umma to turn to ‘Ali after him and to follow him. In light of such hadith, tell us what ‘Ali's opposition to Abu Bakr means to you. It is of course very sad and surprising that so much haste was made on the Saqifa day. Every sensible person who knows what happened that day is greatly disappointed. If there was no plotting, why didn't they wait (at least for a few hours) so that ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the Bani Hashim, and Abbas could express their views on the caliphate?

Hafiz: There was no conspiracy. Since they feared a disturbance, they were quick to decide the matter of the caliphate for the safety of Islam.

Well-Wisher: Do you mean that Abu Ubaida Jarra, a former grave-digger of Mecca, and others had more concern for the safety of Islam than Abbas, the Prophet's respected uncle, and ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib? Do you mean that if they had waited for a short time, or if Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, keeping the people engaged, had sent Abu Ubaida to inform Abbas and ‘Ali of the serious situation that Islam would have perished? Please be fair.

If they had invited the appropriate people to the Saqifa, their position would have been more secure. There would be no such differences in Islam as exist today. After 1335 years, we Muslim brothers would not be confronting each other as we are tonight but would be united in opposing our common enemy. Much of the foundation of the flawed edifice of Islam was laid on that day. It was due to the haste of those three people to accomplish their secret designs.

Nawab: Respected sir, please tell us why they rushed ahead. Why didn't they inform even the people in the mosque or in the house of the Prophet?

Well-Wisher: The reasons are not far to seek. They rushed forward because they knew that if they waited for all the Muslims to come, or at least for the notable people of Usama Ibn Zaid's army, the prominent companions of the Prophet present in Medina, or the Bani Hashim that the name of ‘Ali, among others, would have been proposed. If the names of ‘Ali and Abbas had been proposed, Abu Bakr's and ‘Umar's political possibilities would have been much reduced.

So they hurried with their plans so that, while the Bani Hashim and the prominent companions were busy conducting the Prophet's funeral rites, they succeeded in appointing Abu Bakr Caliph based on the votes of two people! They played that game, and here tonight you good people are giving it the name of "ijma!" Even your own great ulama’, like Tabari, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, and others have written that ‘Umar said: "The caliphate of Abu Bakr was abruptly established. May Allah help us!"

As for your other claim, which you advance on the authority of Caliph ‘Umar, that prophethood and sovereignty cannot be combined in one family, it is also rejected according to the Holy Qur'an:

"Or do they envy the people for what Allah has given them of His grace? But indeed We have given to Abraham's children the Book and the wisdom, and We have given them a good Kingdom." (4:54)

This hadith, ascribed to Caliph ‘Umar, is concocted. The Prophet never said a word in contradiction to the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an. Moreover, the caliphate cannot be separate from prophethood because the true caliph is the embodiment of God's law acting in the world.

To consider the caliphate merely a political office separable from prophethood is precisely the mistake made by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. If Moses' brother Aaron could be excluded from Moses' caliphate, ‘Ali also could be deprived of the Prophet's caliphate.

And since prophethood and caliphate, according to the Qur'an was combined in Moses and Aaron, it was undoubtedly combined in Muhammad and ‘Ali. Your "hadith" was fabricated by the Umayyads. If prophethood and the caliphate could not be combined in one family, then why in the Majlis al-Shura (consultative assembly) did Caliph ‘Umar nominate ‘Ali for the caliphate?

After all, you also accept him as your fourth caliph! It is an interesting contradiction that, based on ‘Umar's hadith, you reject the combining of prophethood and the caliphate, but when ‘Umar himself sanctioned this situation a few years later, you support it!

Can you oppose and support the same proposition? You say that prophethood and sovereignty are not combined in one family, though the Holy Prophet made it compulsory for his umma to follow his progeny. He said that to be hostile to them was to go astray.

He said on a number of occasions, "I leave behind me two weighty things: the Book of Allah (The Holy Qur'an) and my Ahlul Bayt. If you are attached to these two, never, never shall you go astray after me." This authentic hadith has been acknowledged by both sects. I have mentioned it on previous nights with its sources.

During the great flood whoever took refuge in Noah's ark was saved. Whoever turned away from it was drowned, including Noah's son. The Holy Prophet also identified his progeny with Noah's Ark, meaning that the people of his umma in the hour of their trial should attach themselves to his descendants.

Therefore, according to these clear injunctions, the umma, in all its differences, should have sought the benefit of the Prophet's Ahlul Bayt. ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, according to Prophet, was the most learned and virtuous person among them. Why didn't they inform him so that they could consult with him? But no. Politicians grabbed power and deprived ‘Ali of his permanent right.

Sheikh: On what grounds do you say that they should have followed ‘Ali and that the opinion and ijma of the companions should have been ignored?

Well-Wisher: I never said that the opinion of the companions and their ijma should not be respected. One difference between you and me is that as soon as you hear the name of a companion, even though he be a hypocrite, like Abu Huraira, whom Caliph ‘Umar beat and called a liar, you bow before him in reverence. I respect only companions who complied with the conditions of companionship with the Holy Prophet. Moreover, I have demonstrated that there was no ijma at Saqifa.

If you can refute my argument, now is the time to do so. I will bow down before the consensus of this gathering. If you can point out from your own books that in the Saqifa, the whole umma, or the intelligent people of the nation gathered and agreed that Abu Bakr should be Caliph, we will readily accept it. And if, with the exception of two people (‘Umar and Abu Ubaida) and a few people of the Aus clan, no other person took the oath of allegiance, you should admit that we Shi’as are rightly guided.

We leave it to informed opinion to decide whether three companions were justified in holding the reins of the whole umma. Two paid allegiance to the third, and later they threatened others with the sword, fire, and disgrace, compelling them to accept their will.

Sheikh: We do not know whether there was negligence on their part because we were not there on that day. At this distance in time we cannot appreciate the pressures they were under. Today, with the situation an established fact, it does not matter if the ijma was completed in gradual steps. We should not object. We should bow down before those people and follow the way they have shown us.

Well-Wisher: What a fine argument! Do you want us to think Islam is groundless? If two or three people design a plan and gain the support of others, is it the duty of all Muslims to follow them? Is that the meaning of the religion of the Prophet of Islam? The Holy Qur'an says:

"Therefore give good news to my servants, those who listen to the word and follow the best of it." (39:17-18)

Islam is based on facts and reason, not on blind following, certainly not on following Abu Ubaida, the grave digger. The Prophet showed us the way. He said that when the umma was divided, we should follow one who is guided. You ask us why it is obligatory for us to follow ‘Ali. We reply that the obligation is based upon the verses of the Holy Qur'an and hadith recorded in your own books.

There are many hadith making it imperative on the umma to follow ‘Ali. One of them is narrated by Ammar al-Yasir, which your following ulama’ have recorded in their books: Hafiz Abi Nu'aim Ispahani in Hilya; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul; Baladhuri in Ta'rikh; Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 43, from Hamwaini; Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda V; Dailami in Firdaus. They narrate a lengthy, detailed hadith which cannot be related here in full. It may be stated briefly that when people asked Abu Ayyub why he had gone to ‘Ali and had not sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr, he replied that one day he was sitting with the Prophet when Ammar al-Yasir came in and asked the Prophet a question.

In the course of his conversation, the Prophet said: "O Ammar! If all the people go one way and ‘Ali alone goes the other way, you should follow ‘Ali. O Ammar! ‘Ali will not allow you to diverge from the path of guidance and will not lead you to destruction; O Ammar! Obedience to ‘Ali is obedience to me, and obedience to me is obedience to Allah."

In light of these injunctions, and in light of ‘Ali's opposition to Abu Bakr, shouldn't people have followed ‘Ali? Even if the Bani Hashim, Bani Umayya, distinguished companions, the intelligentsia of the nation, the Muhajirs, and Ansars had not been with him (and they were with him), people should have followed ‘Ali.

Hafiz: During our discussion, you have said two strange things. First you have repeatedly called Abu Ubaida a "grave digger." Can you prove that this was the profession of this gentleman? Second, you said that ‘Ali, the Bani Hashim, and the companions did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr, they opposed him. But all the historians and traditionists have written that ‘Ali, the Bani Hashim, and the companions of the Prophet did take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Well-Wisher: It is not we alone who claim that Abu Ubaida was a grave digger. It is in your own books. You may refer to Al-Bidayya wa'n-Nihaya, Volume V, pages 266-267 compiled by Ibn Kathir Shami, who says that since Abu Ubaida used to dig the graves of the Meccans, Abbas sent a man in search of Abu Talha, the grave digger of Medina, and another man in search of Abu Ubaida, so that both of them might dig the Prophet's grave.

You say that ‘Ali, the Bani Hashim, and the Prophet's companions took the oaths of allegiance to Abu Bakr. You have read the words "paid allegiance," but you have not understood to whom and how they paid allegiance. All your learned traditionists and great historians have written that ‘Ali and the Bani Hashim paid allegiance (outwardly), but that was done after six months, and then only under extreme duress.

Hafiz: It is not proper for a noble man like you to use the words that the common Shi’as people use: that ‘Ali was dragged out of his house and was threatened with death if he did not swear allegiance. The fact is that in the first few days of the caliphate, he willingly and cheerfully accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr.

Well-Wisher: ‘Ali and the Bani Hashim did not take the oath of allegiance immediately. Your historians have written that ‘Ali offered his allegiance after the demise of Hazrat Fatima. Bukhari in his Sahih, Volume III, Chapter of Ghazawa Khaibar, page 37, and Muslim Ibn Hujjaj, in his Sahih, Volume V, page 154, report that ‘Ali offered his allegiance after Fatima's death. Some of your ulama’ believe that Fatima died 75 days after the Prophet's death.

Ibn Qutayba also holds the same view, but most of your historians claim that she died six months after the Prophet died. It follows, therefore, that ‘Ali's allegiance came some time after 3 to 6 months of the Prophet's death. Mas'udi in his Muruju's-sahab, Volume I, page 414, says "None of the Bani Hashim swore their allegiance to Abu Bakr until the death of Bibi Fatima.

Ibrahim Ibn Sa'd Saqafi narrates from Zuhri that ‘Ali did not pay allegiance until six months after the Prophet's death, and the people did not have the courage to pressure him except after the death of Bibi Fatima. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha relates the same fact.

In any case, your own ulama’ insist that ‘Ali's allegiance was not immediate but came only after some time had passed and then only when circumstances forced him to do so. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume II, page 18, narrates from Zuhri, from A’ysha, who said: "‘Ali did not offer allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months, and no one of the Bani Hashim offered allegiance until ‘Ali did."

Ahmad Ibn A'sam al-Kufi Shafi'i in Futuh, and Abu Nasr Hamidi, in Jam'a Bainu's-Sahihain report from Nafiy, quoting from Zuhri, who said: "‘Ali did not swear allegiance until six months after the Prophet's death."

Hafiz: Where have our ulama’ said that ‘Ali was dragged from his house and house set on fire, as is commonly believed by Shi’as? They narrate it with great emotion in their religious gatherings. They also excite the emotions of people by saying that Fatima was tortured and consequently suffered a miscarriage.

Well-Wisher: Respected audience: you revile the Shi’as, attempting to cover the guilt of your predecessors. You say that these hadith have been concocted by Shi’as. The truth is that on the order of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and others went to ‘Ali's house, threatened him with a sword, dragged him to the mosque and forced him to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. These facts have been recorded by your own ulama’. If you wish, I will relate them. We do not say anything on our own authority. We say only what you say.

(1) Abu Ja'far Baladhuri Ahmad Ibn Yahya Ibn Jabir Baghdadi, one of your reliable traditionists and historians, writes in his History that when Abu Bakr called ‘Ali to swear allegiance, ‘Ali refused. Abu Bakr sent ‘Umar who went with a torch to set fire to ‘Ali's house. Fatima came to the door and said: "O son of Khattab! Have you come to set my house on fire?" He said: "Yes, this is more effective than anything your father did."

(2) Izzu'd-Din Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, and Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, narrate that ‘Umar went to the door of ‘Ali's house with Usayd Ibn Khuza'i, Salama Ibn Aslam and a group of men. ‘Umar then called out, "Come out! Or else I'll set your house on fire!"

(3) Ibn Khaziba reports in his Kitab al-Gharrar from Zaid Ibn Aslam, who said: "I was one of those who went with ‘Umar with torches to Fatima's door. When ‘Ali and his men refused to offer allegiance, ‘Umar said to Fatima, "Let whoever is inside come out. Otherwise, I will set the house on fire along with whoever is inside." ‘Ali, Hasan, Husain, Fatima, and a party of the Prophet's companions, and the Bani Hashim were inside. Fatima said: "Would you set my house on fire along with me and my sons?" He said: "Yes, by Allah, if they do not come out and pay allegiance to the caliph of the Prophet."

(4) Ibn Abd Rabbih, one of your famous ulama’, writes in his Iqdu'l-Farid, Part III, page 63, that ‘Ali and Abbas were sitting in Fatima's house. Abu Bakr told ‘Umar: "Go and bring these people. If they refuse to come, fight them." So ‘Umar came to Fatima's house with torches. Fatima came to the door of the house and said: "Have you come to burn our house?" He said: "Yes..." and so on.

(5) Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Shahre Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 134, quoting from Jauhari's Kitab al-Saqifa, writes in detail about the affair of the Saqifa al-Bani Sa'ad. "The Bani Hashim and ‘Ali were assembled in ‘Ali's house. Zubair was also with them since he considered himself one of the Bani Hashim. ‘Ali used to say, 'Zubair was always with us until his sons were grown up.

They turned him against us.' ‘Umar went to Fatima's house with a group of men. Usayd and Salma were also with him. ‘Umar asked them to come out and swear allegiance. They refused. Zubair drew his sword and came out. ‘Umar said: 'Get hold of this dog.' Salma Ibn Aslam snatched the sword and threw it against the wall. Then they dragged ‘Ali to Abu Bakr.

Other Bani Hashim also followed him and were waiting to see what ‘Ali would do. ‘Ali was saying that he was the servant of Allah and the brother of the Holy Prophet. Nobody listened to him.

They took him to Abu Bakr, who asked him to take the oath of allegiance to him. ‘Ali said: "I am the most deserving person for this position, and I will not pay allegiance to you. It is incumbent on you to pay allegiance to me. You took this right from the Ansar based on your relationship with the Prophet.

I also, on the same ground, protest against you. So be just. If you fear Allah, accept my right, as the Ansar did yours. Otherwise, you should acknowledge that you are intentionally oppressing me.' ‘Umar said: 'We will not leave you until you swear allegiance.'

‘Ali said: 'You have conspired well together. Today you support him, so that tomorrow he may return the caliphate to you. I swear by Allah that I will not comply with your request and will not take the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr). He should pay allegiance to me.'

Then he turned his face toward the people and said: 'O Muhajirs! Fear Allah. Do not take away the right of authority of Muhammad's family. That right has been ordained by Allah. Do not remove the rightful person from his place.

By Allah, we Ahlul Bayt have greater authority in this matter than you have. There is a man among you who has the knowledge of the Book of Allah (The Qur'an), the Sunna of the Prophet, and the laws of our Religion. I swear by Allah that we possess all these things. So do not follow yourselves lest you should stray from the truth.'" ‘Ali returned home without offering allegiance and secluded himself in his house until Fatima died. Thereafter, he was forced to offer allegiance.

(6) Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba Ibn ‘Umar Al-Bahili Dinawari, who was one of your ulama’ and an official Qazi of the city of Dinawar, writes in his famous Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafate Raghibin wa Daulate Bani Umayya, known as Al-Imama wa's-Siyasa, Volume I, page 13: "When Abu Bakr learned that a group hostile to him had assembled in ‘Ali's house, he sent ‘Umar to them.

When ‘Umar shouted to ‘Ali to come out and to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, they all refused to come out. ‘Umar collected wood and said 'I swear by Allah, Who has my life in His control, either you will come out, or I will set the house with all those in it on fire.'

People said: 'O Abu Hafsa! Fatima is also present in the house.' He said: 'Let her be there. I will set fire to the house.' So all of them came out and offered allegiance, except ‘Ali, who said: 'I have taken a vow that until I have compiled the Qur'an, I will neither go out of the house nor will I put on full dress.'

‘Umar did not accept this, but the plaintive lamentation of Fatima and the snubbing by others, forced him to go back to Abu Bakr. ‘Umar urged him to force ‘Ali to swear allegiance. Abu Bakr sent Qanfaz several times to summon ‘Ali, but he was always disappointed.

At last ‘Umar, with a group of people went to the door of Fatima's house. When Fatima heard their voices, she cried out 'O my father, Prophet of Allah! What tortures we are subjected to by the son of Khattab and the son of Abi Quhafa!

‘When the people heard Fatima's lamentation, some went back with their hearts broken, but ‘Umar remained there with some others until finally they dragged ‘Ali from the house. They took ‘Ali to Abu Bakr, and told him to swear allegiance to him. ‘Ali said: 'If I do not swear allegiance what will you do to me?' They said: 'We swear by Allah that we will break your neck.' ‘Ali said: 'Will you kill the servant of Allah and the brother of His Prophet?' ‘Umar said: 'You are not the brother of the Prophet of Allah.'

While all this was going on, Abu Bakr kept silent. ‘Umar then asked Abu Bakr whether he (‘Umar) was not following Abu Bakr's orders in this matter. Abu Bakr said that so long as Fatima was alive he would not force ‘Ali to swear allegiance to him. ‘Ali then managed to reach the grave of the Prophet, where, wailing and crying, he told the Prophet what Aaron had told his brother, Moses, as recorded in the Holy Qur'an:

'Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well nigh slain me.' (7:150)

After narrating this affair in detail, Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Qutayba says that ‘Ali did not swear allegiance and returned home. Later Abu Bakr and ‘Umar went to Fatima's house to placate her and to seek her pardon. She said: "Allah be my witness that you two have offended me. In every prayer I curse you and will continue cursing you until I see my father and complain against you."

(7) Ahmad Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz is one of your ulama’. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes about him in the following words: "He was a man of learning, a traditionist, a great literary figure." He writes in his Kitab al-Saqifa and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali also quotes from him in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 9, on the authority of Abi'l-Aswad, who said: "A group of the companions and prominent Muhajirin expressed their indignation at Abu Bakr's caliphate and asked why they were not consulted.

Also ‘Ali and Zubair expressed their anger, refused to swear allegiance, and retired to Fatima's house. Fatima cried aloud and made solemn entreaties, but to no effect. They took away ‘Ali's and Zubair's swords and hurled them against the wall, breaking them. Then they dragged them to the mosque to force them to swear allegiance."

(8) Jauhari reports from Salma Ibn Abdu'r-Rahman that when Abu Bakr heard that ‘Ali, Zubair, and a party of the Bani Hashim were assembled in Fatima's house, he sent ‘Umar for them. ‘Umar went to the door of Fatima's house and shouted, "Come out, otherwise, I swear I will set your house on fire!"

(9) Jauhari, according to Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume II, page 19, narrates on the authority of Sha'bi: "When Abu Bakr heard about the gathering of the Bani Hashim in ‘Ali's house, he said to ‘Umar: 'Both you and Khalid go and bring ‘Ali and Zubair to me so that they can take the oath of allegiance.' So ‘Umar entered Fatima's house and Khalid stayed outside. ‘Umar said to Zubair 'What is this sword?' He replied, 'I have acquired it for allegiance to ‘Ali.'

‘Umar snatched the sword and hurled it at the stone inside the house and broke it. Then he brought him out to Khalid. He came back into the house, where there were many people, including Miqdad, and all the Bani Hashim. Addressing ‘Ali, he said: 'Get up! I'm taking you to Abu Bakr. You must pay allegiance to him.'

‘Ali refused. ‘Umar dragged him to Khalid. Khalid and ‘Umar forced him along the road which was packed to capacity with men who witnessed this scene. When Fatima saw ‘Umar's behavior, she, along with many women of the Bani Hashim (who had come to console her), came out. They were lamenting and wailing with high-pitched cries. Fatima went to the mosque where she said to Abu Bakr: 'How soon have you sacked the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet of Allah.

I swear by Allah, I will not talk with ‘Umar until I see Allah.' Fatima showed her extreme disapproval of Abu Bakr and did not speak to him for the rest of her life." (See Sahih Bukhari, Part V and VII).

(10) Abu Walid Muhibu'd-Din Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ash-Shahna Al-Hanafi (died 815 A.H.), one of your leading ulama’ writes in his Rauzatu'l-Manazir Fi Khabaru'l-Awa'il wa'l-Awakhir, in connection with the Saqifa affair: "‘Umar came to ‘Ali's house prepared to set it on fire with all its inmates. ‘Umar said: 'Enter into what the community has entered.'"

(11) Tabari, in his Ta'rikh Volume II, page 443, reports from Ziyad Ibn Kalbi that "Talha, Zubair, and some of the Muhajirin were at ‘Ali's house. ‘Umar Ibn Khattab went there and demanded that they come out. If they did not, he said, he would set the house on fire."

These are but a sample of the many historical facts recorded by your own historians. This affair was so commonly known that the poets of old mentioned it. One of your poets, Hafiz Ibrahim of Egypt, says in a poem in praise of ‘Umar: "No other person but Abu Hafsa (father of ‘Umar) could have the courage of addressing the chief of the Adnan Clan (‘Ali) and his comrades, saying: 'If you fail to pay allegiance, I will set your house on fire and will not leave any inmate of the house alive, even Fatima herself.'"

Hafiz: These narrations show only that they brought torches to frighten and disperse the opponents of the caliphate. It is a concocted Shi’as version to say that ‘Ali's house was set on fire, and that Fatima miscarried as a result.

Well-Wisher: You should read Kitab al-Isbatu'l-Wasiyya, compiled by Abi'l-Hasan ‘Ali Ibn Husain Mas'udi, author of Muruju'dh-Dhahab. He wrote in great detail about the events of that day: "They surrounded ‘Ali and burned the door of his house.

They dragged him out of the house and pressed the best of the women, Fatima, between the door and the wall so forcefully that Muhsin, her unborn son, died of miscarriage." The Shi’as have not concocted these things. What occurred has been preserved in the pages of history. The miscarriage is a fact.

You may also refer to Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume III, page 351. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid wrote that he told his teacher, Abu Ja'far Naqib, that when the Prophet was told that Hubbar Ibn Aswad had attacked his daughter Zainab's litter with a lance, because of which Zainab suffered a miscarriage, the Prophet allowed him to be put to death. Abu Ja'far said: 'Had the Prophet of Allah been alive, he would have surely ordered the death penalty for him also who had frightened Fatima so much that her child, Muhsin, died in miscarriage.'

Hafiz: I don't understand what useful purpose it serves to narrate such stories. This kind of thing leads to mutual discord.

Well-Wisher: You object to my relating these facts. But I do so to reject the attacks of malicious authors who mislead our uninformed brothers, calling Shi’as infidels and saying that these facts were the fabrications of the Shi’as.

We do not say anything about ‘Ali beyond what the Prophet said about him. We told you on previous nights that we regard ‘Ali as a devoted servant of Allah, a divinely appointed vicegerent and successor to the Prophet. You claim that it is of no use to relate these facts.

If you wouldn't bring up these points, we would not discuss them. If you hadn't said tonight that these are Shi’as beliefs with no substance to them, I would not have been obliged to tell the audience that these are the beliefs of unbiased Sunni ulama’.

Nawab: Respected Sir, we believe that Husain, the martyr, was rightly guided and that he was murdered unjustly by the officers of the Bani Umayya. But there are some people, particularly among our young people, who say that the Battle of Karbala was strictly a military, and not a religious, event. It is said that Husain Ibn ‘Ali proceeded to Kufa in quest of power, and it is the duty of every government to curb such dangers. Accordingly, Yazid resisted this threat.

They requested the revered Imam to pay unconditional allegiance to Caliph Yazid, to whom obedience was obligatory. They wanted him to go to Syria to live there with the Caliph honorably or to go back to his native place. But he did not follow their advice, and consequently he was killed.

They conclude that any mourning for such a worldly man, who was killed because of his love of power, is not only meaningless, but is an innovation. Do you have a reply to this point? How do you disprove the idea that the Battle of Karbala was not the culmination of a political struggle?

Well-Wisher: Every good or bad action is based on our knowledge of Allah. The objectors should first recognize Allah, and then they should acknowledge the divine book, the Qur'an. From that acknowledgement it follows that we recognize that whatever is in that book is praise. Anyone who believes that Husain Ibn ‘Ali was motivated by worldly goals denies the truth of the Holy Qur'an. Allah Almighty has given evidence of Husain's purity in the Holy Qur'an. He says:

"Allah desires only to keep away uncleanness from you, O people of the house! And to purify you with a thorough purifying." (33:33)

Most of your ulama’, like Muslim, Tirmidhi Tha'labi, Sijistani, Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, Abu Bakr Shirazi, Suyuti, Hamwaini, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Zamakhshari, Baidhawi, Ibn Athir, and others have held that this verse was revealed in praise of the Holy five, the Ahlul Bayt (people of the House): Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. This verse is the greatest proof for the infallibility and purity of these Holy people. The greatest impurity is love for worldly power.

There are many hadith from the Prophet and the Imams condemning aspiration for worldly power and the fulfillment of our carnal desires. The Prophet said, "Love and friendship with the world is the root of all evil." Abu Abdullah Husain had no love for worldly power. He certainly did not risk his life and the lives of his family in order to attain transitory rule in this world.

If Imam Husain's stand against Yazid were merely for worldly power, the Prophet would not have ordered people to help him. Your own ulama’ confirm this point. Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda from the histories of Bukhari, Baghawi, and Ibnu's-Sikkin from Zakha'iru'l-Uqba of Imamu'l-Haram Shafi'i, and Sirat al-Mulla narrate from Anas Ibn Harith Ibn Bayya, who said that he heard the Holy Prophet say: "Verily, my son Husain will be killed on the soil of Karbala. Every one of you who is present at that time must help him."

The report continues: "Anas Ibn Harith reached Karbala and, in obedience to the command of the Prophet, was martyred along with Imam Husain." It follows, therefore, that at Karbala Imam Husain stood for the cause of truth and not for love of this world.

Imam Husain's undertaking the journey with a small group, including his women and small children, is another indication that he left his home not for the purpose of gaining rule. If that had been his intention, he would have gone to Yemen, where he had widespread support.

Yemen would have been the logical base for launching military operations. In fact his friends repeatedly encouraged him to go to Yemen, but they were not aware of his purpose. But Imam Husain knew that there was no means of attaining apparent success.

His journey, begun with 84 people, including women and children, aimed at a basic good. The Holy tree - la ilaha ill'allah (there is no god except Allah) - was grown by his grandfather, nourished with his blood and the blood of the martyrs of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain.

The tree was entrusted to an excellent gardener, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib, who was held back by threats of murder and arson. The result was that the spring of Tawhid (oneness of Allah) and prophethood had taken on an autumnal change. Gradually the administration of the garden fell into the hands of the malicious Bani Umayya.

Since the caliphate of Uthman Ibn Affan, the Bani Umayya controlled the administration of the empire. Abu Sufyan, old and blind, but his appetite for power as keen as ever, cried out to the Umayyad Court: "O Bani Umayya! Keep the caliphate in your own family. Paradise and hell are myths. O Bani Umayya! Take hold of the caliphate like a ball. I swear that by which I swear, that I always wished such rule for you. Take care of it so that your descendants may be its heirs."

These unbelievers ejected the rightful gardeners from the garden. The life-water was stopped and the Holy tree shrivelled until the reign of Yazid, when it appeared to be destined to die. Imam Husain undertook the journey to Karbala to water the garden of Prophethood and to strengthen the Holy tree of la ilaha ill'Allah. Some people ask why Imam Husain did not raise the flag of opposition in Medina.

They do not understand that if he had remained in Medina, his objective would have remained unclear. Imam Husain went to Mecca in the month of Rajab and addressed thousands of people, telling them that Yazid was uprooting the tree of tawhid.

He said that Yazid, who claimed to be the Caliph of the Muslims, was destroying the foundation of Islam. Addicted to wine and gambling, Yazid amused himself with dogs and monkeys. Imam Husain considered the sacrifice of his life necessary for the preservation of Islam.

Imam Husain's friends and relatives tried to dissuade him from going to Kufa, saying that the Kufans who had asked him to come were notoriously unreliable. Many people flocked to the Bani Umayya and received money and political favors in return for their support.

Therefore, according to many of his supporters, Imam Husain had no chance to subdue them. They asked him to abandon the journey. They urged him to go to Yemen where he had many followers, and where he could live in peace.

But Husain could not explain the reality of his situation. However, he satisfied each of them with a brief reply. He told close companions and relatives, like his brother, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya: "You are saying the correct thing. I also know that I shall not achieve any apparent domination, but I am not going for worldly conquest. I am going in order to be killed. I wish that through the strength of my suffering tyranny, I may root out the very foundation of oppression and cruelty. I saw my grandfather, the Prophet, in a dream telling me: 'Make a journey to Iraq. Allah Almighty wants to see you murdered.'"

Muhammad Ibn Hanifiyya and Ibn Abbas said: "If this is so, why are you taking women with you?" He replied: "My grandfather said that Allah wants to see them captives. So, according to the command of the Holy Prophet, I am taking them with me."

The captivity of the women would be the conclusive part of his martyrdom. They would demonstrate to the world the Umayyad cruelty to the Prophet's descendants. Bibi Zainab, the daughter of ‘Ali and Fatima, made an eloquent protest in Yazid's crowded court, where hundreds of people, including the nobility, the great men of the Bani Umayya, and foreign ambassadors celebrated their victory.

The fourth Imam, Zainu'l-Abidin ‘Ali Ibn Husain, also made an eloquent appeal for justice from the pulpit of the Umayyad mosque, in Yazid's presence. After extolling the merits and attributes of Allah, Zainu'l-Abidin said: "O people! We, the descendants of Muhammad, have been endowed by Allah with six qualities and have been made superior to the whole creation by being granted seven virtues. We have been given knowledge, forbearance, valor, beautiful appearance, eloquence, bravery, and are loved by the believers.

We are superior to every man in that the Prophet Muhammad is from us; the Siddiq ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib is from us; Ja'far al-Tayyar is from us; Hamza is from us, two grandsons of the Prophet, Hasan and Husain, are from us; and the Mahdi (the guided one) of this People (Imam al-Hujjat Ibn Hasan) is from us. One who does not know me should know about my family and family status; I am the son of the most exalted and virtuous Prophet of Allah, Muhammad Mustafa!"

Then from the same pulpit from which Mu'awiya and Yazid had cursed ‘Ali, the Imam praised his illustrious grandfather, ‘Ali, before Yazid and the chiefs of the Bani Umayyad. Many Syrians had never before heard ‘Ali's qualities and virtues.

The Imam said: "I am the son of the man who fought in the presence of the Holy Prophet; who fought the infidels at Badr and Hunain; who never for a moment lost faith in Allah. I am the son of the most pious of the believers, the heir of the prophets, the slayer of the unbelievers, the ruler of the Muslims, the grace of the worshipers, the crown of those who weep in awe of Allah, the most patient of the patient, the best of the performers of prayer.

I am the son of the man who was helped by Gabriel and Michael. I am the son of the man who was the protector of the honor of the Muslims and the slayer of the disbelievers. I am the son of the man who fought Holy war against the enemy, who was the pride of the Quraish, the foremost of those who accepted the message of Allah and His Prophet, the first of those who embraced Islam, the tongue of the wisdom of Allah, the helper of the religion of Allah, the guardian of the commandments of Allah, the garden of Allah's wisdom, the repository of His knowledge.

I am the son of the chief of the patient ones, the breaker of barriers, whose heart was more steadfast, whose resolution more firm, whose disposition steadier than anyone's. He was a fierce lion on the battlefield, who cut down the enemy with his sword and scattered them as a violent storm scatters straw.

He was the bravest among the people of the Hijaz, the most valiant among the Iraqis, the purest Muslim, he who swore allegiance at Aqaba, the hero of Badr and Hunain, the courageous man on the occasion of allegiance under the tree, the unique sacrificer during the Holy Prophet's migration, the chief of the Arab world, the guardian of the Holy Ka'ba, the father of two grandsons of the Holy Prophet.

These are the virtues of my grandfather, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib. I am also the son of Khadija al-Kubra; I am the son of Fatima Zahra; I am the son of one who was murdered by a blow to the back of the neck; I am the son of one who left this world thirsty; I am the son of one who was deprived of water while water was allowed to the rest of creation. I am the son of one whose body was neither bathed nor shrouded; I am the son of one whose sacred head was raised on the point of the sword; I am the son of one whose women were affronted on the soil of Karbala and taken captive.

I am the son of one whose women were brought to Syria as captives." Then the Holy Imam wept with a loud cry, and continued: "I am.... I am...." that is, he went on narrating the virtues of his forefathers and the victimization of his Holy father and the Ahlul Bayt. As a result of his address, people wept. After the martyrdom of Imam Husain, the first majlis (assembly for mourning) for the brutal sufferings of Imam Husain was held in this central mosque of the Umayyads.

Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, after narrating ‘Ali's virtues in the presence of the enemies, gave such a moving account of the sufferings of his revered father that agonized weeping rose from the Syrians in the presence of Yazid. He became frightened and left the mosque.

It was from this mosque, due to the Imam's address, that people rose against Yazid. Because of popular outcry, Yazid was forced to curse Ubaidullah Ibn Marjana for his vicious deed. Eventually, the castle of the Bani Umayya's tyranny was destroyed. Today we do not find in all of Syria a single tomb of the Bani Umayya.

To return to your question, Imam Husain frequently foretold his martyrdom. He once spoke in Mecca, on Tarwia day (8th day of Dhu'l-Hijja, 60 A.H.), saying: "Death is attached to every member of the progeny of Adam as a necklace is attached to a young woman. I am as eager to meet my ancestors as Jacob was to meet Joseph. The place where I shall fall has already been selected for me, and I must go to that place. I see wild leopards killing me, tearing apart my body, between Nawawi's and Karbala."

Imam Husain knew that he would not reach Kufa, the capital of Syria. He knew that he would be killed by men who were like ferocious beasts, cutting his body to pieces. He undertook the journey for the purpose of martyrdom and not for political reasons.

Along the way he told people of his impending death. He told his companions and relatives that one instance was sufficient to prove the worthlessness of this world. He said that after the beheading of the Prophet John, the head was presented to an adulteress. He said that his own head would soon be taken to the drunkard, Yazid.

Consider the matter for a moment. Hurr Ibn Yazid Riyahi with a cavalry of 1,000 soldiers obstructed Husain's way. Kufa was only thirty miles away. Hur had been appointed by Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad to detain Imam Husain. Hur would neither let him proceed to Kufa, nor leave his company without further orders. Why did the Imam surrender himself to Hur? If Husain had sought political power, he certainly would never have been stopped by Hur, who had not more than 1,000 soldiers.

The Imam had 1,300 soldiers. Having defeated them, the Imam could have reached Kufa, where he had widespread support. From there, being reinforced, he could have confronted the enemy and gained domination. But he accepted Hur's order, stopped there in the desert surrounded by the enemy. After four days enemy reinforcements arrived there, and the Prophet's son was forced to endure cruel suffering.

The best evidence in support of my view is the Imam's address on the night before The Day of Ashura. Until that night 1,300 soldiers were ready to fight for him. Husain gathered the people together and told them: "Those who have come here for worldly gain should know that tomorrow whoever remains on this soil will be killed. The enemy is after me alone; I lift the binding force of allegiance from your necks. It is night, and you can depart in the darkness."

Many accepted his proposal and departed. Only 42 people remained, 18 Bani Hashim and 24 companions. After midnight, 30 enemy soldiers moved toward the Imam's camp for a night attack, but when they heard Husain reciting the Holy Qur'an, they were filled with emotion and joined the Imam. These were the 72 people who sacrificed their lives on the Day of Ashura. Most of them were pious people, and many were reciters of the Holy Qur'an.

Husain's noble sacrifices are acknowledged today by friend and foe alike. Even those alien to our religion are impressed by his heroism. In the French Da'iratu'l-Ma'arif, there is a lengthy article entitled "Three Martyrs" written by a learned British woman. Her theme is that in all of history there have been three martyrs who, by sacrificing their lives, have been most influential in advancing the cause of truth. The first was Socrates, and the second was Jesus (the writer was a Christian).

We Muslims, of course, believe that Jesus was not crucified. The Holy Qur'an clearly says:

"And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Jesus) and most surely those who differ therein are only in doubt about it. They have no knowledge concerning it, but only follow conjecture. They did not kill him for certain. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself." (4:157-158)

The third martyr she writes, was Husain, the grandson of Muhammad. She writes: "When we take stock of historical events and assess the circumstances under which these three persons offered their lives, we acknowledge that the sacrifices of Husain excelled those two. The fact was that Socrates and Christ offered only their own lives for sacrifice in the way of God, but Husain left his home for a distant desert land to be surrounded by the enemy.

He and his entire family were martyred for the cause of truth. He sent his friends and relations to confront the enemy and to sacrifice their lives for the religion of Allah. This was in fact harder than giving up his own life."

The most glaring example of the tyranny suffered by Husain was the brutal murder of his six-month old son. He brought the baby in his hands asking for water for him (which was in abundance), but the ruthless enemy, instead of giving him water, killed the child with an arrow.

The enemy's barbarism proves that Imam Husain was a victim of tyranny. His incredible forbearance completely ruined the power of the Bani Umayya and condemned them before the world. It was due to his, and his respected Ahlul Bayt's, sacrifices that the religion of Muhammad received new life.

Nawab Sahib: We are really much indebted to you. We have been very impressed by your explanation of the facts concerning Imam Husain. Until now, we have followed other people and have been deprived of the blessings of ziarat (pilgrimage to the Holy tomb of the Imam).

We were told that to visit Imam Husain's shrine was bidat "innovation." Of course, what a good innovation it is, since it inspires man and helps him understand the truth about the descendants of the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: The word "bidat," "innovation," has its origin in the sect of the Sunni ulama’ and of the Nasibis and Kharijis, who were confirmed enemies of ‘Ali. They have called Ziarat "innovation" without considering the fact that bidat refers to something concerning the Prophet or his Ahlul Bayt, which has not been enjoined by Allah.

However, concerning the question of visiting Husain's tomb, there are many hadith in the books of your own ulama’. I confine myself to one famous hadith recorded in all books of maqatil and collections of hadith.

"One day the Prophet was in A’ysha's apartment when Husain came in. The Prophet took him in his arms, kissed him and smelt him. A’ysha asked: 'May my father's and mother's lives be sacrificed to you! How much you love Husain!' The Prophet said, 'Don't you know that this child is a part of my liver and my flower?' After that the Prophet began to weep. A’ysha asked the cause of his weeping. The Prophet replied that he kissed the places where the Bani Umayya would wound Husain. A’ysha asked if they would kill him.

He said, 'Yes, he will be murdered. They will never have my support (in the hereafter). Blessed is he who goes on a pilgrimage to his tomb after his martyrdom.' A’ysha asked the Prophet what would be the reward for the pilgrim.

The Prophet said, 'It will be equal to one Hajj of mine.' A’ysha said, 'One Hajj of yours!' He said, 'Nay, two,' When A’ysha again expressed astonishment, he said 'Nay, four Hajj.' The more astonished she became the higher was the reward, until at last he said, 'A’ysha! If a person goes on a pilgrimage to Husain's tomb, Allah will give him the reward equivalent to 90 Hajj and 90 Umra performed by me.' Then A’ysha fell silent."

There are other benefits to be gained from visiting the tombs of the Imams. The inner precincts of the shrine, called the haram, remain open for visitors day and night. The haram and the mosques near it are usually found packed to capacity with pilgrims and worshipers.

Those accustomed to offering no more than the obligatory prayers often make special devotional efforts while visiting Holy shrines. They invoke Allah sincerely and recite the Qur'an. Is such devotion an innovation?

Nawab: Of course we have no one to blame but ourselves if we have not examined these matters more closely. A few years ago I went to Baghdad to visit the tombs of Imam A'zam Abu Hanifa and Abdu'l-Qadir Jilani. One day I went to visit nearby Kazimain (the burial place of the seventh Imam, Musa Ibn Ja'far Al-Kazim and the ninth Imam, Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali At-Taqi).

When I returned, my companions were harsh in their criticism of me. I'm surprised that a visit to the tombs of Imam A'zam in Mu'azam, Sheikh Abdu'l-Qadir in Baghdad, of Khwaja Nizamu'd-Din in India, of Sheikh Akbar Muhyi'd-din Ibn Arabi in Egypt may be considered worth rewarding.

Every year many people from among the Sunnis visit these places although the Prophet never recommended it. How can it be that a visit to the tomb of the great martyr, the grandson of the Prophet, which the Prophet recommended, be considered bidat? I firmly resolve that, Allah willing, I will go this year to visit the tomb of the beloved grandson of the Prophet, Husain. I will ask Allah to forgive me for my past faults.

Eighth Session, Thursday night, 1 Sha'ban, 1345 A.H.

Sayyid Abdu'l-Hayy: Respected sir, last night you contributed to discord among the Muslims.

Well-Wisher: Tell me how I did that.

Sayyid: While explaining "ourselves", you divided Muslims into two groups: Muslims and believers. But Muslims are all one and the same. Those who say the words "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger" are all brothers. They should not be separated into two groups because this is harmful to Islam. The Shi’as call themselves believers, and they call us Muslims. You must have seen in India that Shi’as are called believers and the Sunnis are called Muslims.

The fact is that 'Islam' and 'Iman' (conviction) are identical terms because Islam means acceptance of the commands of religion. This recognition is the reality of 'Iman.' The whole community has agreed that Islam is pure Iman. You have gone against the common view.

Well-Wisher: First, your reference to the common people does not mean the people of the community as a whole. It refers to the common people of a group of the Sunnis. Second, your statement about Islam and Iman is not accurate.

Not only do the Shi’as differ with the Sunnis but the Ash'aris, Mu'tazalis, Hanafis, and Shafi'is also have different views about it. Third, I frankly don't understand why learned men like you should resort to such trivial objections.

This division into two groups has been made by Allah in the Holy Qur'an. Perhaps you have forgotten the matter relating to Companions of the Right and the Companions of the Left referred to in the Holy Qur'an which says:

"The dwellers of the desert say: 'We believe.' Say: 'You do not believe but say, we submit; faith has not yet entered your hearts.'" (49:14)

Certainly you must know that this verse was revealed in condemnation of the desert tribe of the Bani Asad, who were Muslims in name only. During a year of famine, they flocked to Medina and, in order to get relief, claimed to be believers.

But at heart they were unbelievers in Allah and the Holy Prophet. This verse verifies that there are two groups of Muslims: sincere Muslims, who have acknowledged the realities of Iman, and those who make mere verbal declarations of faith.

In our social sphere the latter group is entitled to the safety and benefits of the laws meant for all Muslims. But, according to the injunction of the Holy Qur'an, they are not entitled to any reward in the hereafter. Their declarations that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger, and their making a display of the fact that they are Muslims, have no real significance.

Sayyid: You are right, but Islam without Iman (faith or conviction) has no meaning, just as Iman without Islam has no merit. Allah says in the Holy Qur'an:

"And do not say to anyone who offers you peace: 'You are not a believer.'" (4:94)

This verse proves that we must treat one according to one's outward semblance. If anyone says, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," we should accept his Iman. This in itself is the best proof that Islam and Iman are identical terms.

Well-Wisher: This verse was revealed about a particular person, either Usama Ibn Zaid or Muhallam Ibn Jasama al-Laisi, who, it is said, killed a man in battle who had declared "There is no god except Allah." He was killed on the assumption that he had said these words in fear. But because you think it is in the general sense, we also regard all Muslims as being pure. Unless of course, we see them denying the fundamentals of religion.

But there is a difference between Islam and Iman because there are various classes of Iman. Imam Ja'far Ibn Muhammad As-Sadiq says in the narration of ‘Umar and Zubair: "For Iman there are conditions, ranks, and stages. Some of them are defective and their defect is apparent; some are of better value and are weighty; some of them are complete and have reached perfection."

Defective Iman is the very first stage of Iman through which a person passes into Islam from infidelity. Higher degrees of Iman are possible. Reference to them has been made in some of the hadith.

Among them is a narration in Usul Kafi and in Nahju'l-Balagha from the Commander of the Faithful and Ja'far Ibn Muhammad As-Sadiq who said: "Allah has divided Iman into seven classes which consist of goodness, truthfulness, conviction of the heart, submission to the will of Allah, loyalty, knowledge, and forbearance.

These seven qualities have been unequally distributed among human beings. One who completely possesses all these qualities is a perfect believer. Hence, Islam is in the first category of Iman, in which there is only verbal declaration of belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and the unity of Allah. Iman has not entered such person's heart. The Prophet of Allah told a group of his people: 'O people! You are among those who have accepted Islam with your tongue, but not yet with your heart.'"

Obviously Islam and Iman are different. But we are not required to probe the hearts of others. I said last night that the sign of a believer is his deeds. But we have no right to make inquiries about the actions of Muslims. We are compelled, however, to indicate the characteristics of Iman, so that those who are immersed in sleep may be inspired to perform their duties.

Thus they will be aware of the reality of Iman and will know that salvation in the hereafter will come only through performing good deeds, as the hadith says: "Iman means acceptance with the tongue, conviction in the heart, and performance with our limbs." Acceptance with the tongue and conviction in the heart are the preface to action.

Of course we know that this nasty world is only a preface to the next world. The way of salvation for such a man is closed in the hereafter unless he becomes a man of good deeds here. Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an:

"I swear by the declining time, surely man is in loss, Except those who believe and do good...." (103:1-3)

In short, according to the Holy Qur'an, piety is the root of Iman. And if one has no good deeds to his credit, his verbal acknowledgement or conviction at heart will still leave him far from Iman. If it is true that we should consider anyone a Muslim who says, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," why do you regard the Shi’as as infidels?

Certainly Shi’as believe in the unity of Allah, the prophethood of Muhammad, one Qibla, one Book. They perform all obligatory acts, observe prescribed fasts, go on the pilgrimage, pay khums and zakat (religious taxes), believe in bodily resurrection, and the Day of Reckoning.

Isn't it you who cause disunity among Muslims? You keep millions of Muslims separated from you and call them infidels although you have not the smallest evidence to support such charges. You do not recognize that these are the devices of enemies who want to create discord among Muslims by means of such lies. The fact is that we have no differences in the fundamentals of our belief except the Imamate and vicegerency. And what if there were differences in the practices of the faith?

Such differences exist among your own four schools of law, and they are more serious than those between us. (It would not be proper now to point out the differences between Hanafis and Malikis or between Shafi'is and Hanbalis.)

In my opinion you have not the slightest evidence to establish the polytheism or infidelity of Shi’as. The only unpardonable fault of the Shi’as, according to what the Kharijis and Nasibis have propagated by means of the Umayyads, is that the Shi’as do not misinterpret the traditions.

They do not give people like Abu Huraira, Anas, and Samura a place between the Holy Prophet and ourselves. Even your own jurists and your own great Caliphs condemned them as liars.

The greatest fault ascribed to the Shi’as is that they follow the progeny of the Prophet, ‘Ali and the twelve Imams, and not the four Imams. But you have no evidence from the Prophet to show that Muslims must follow the Ash'aris or Mu'tazalis in the fundamentals and Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali or Shafi'is in the articles of practice.

On the other hand, there are innumerable instructions from the Prophet telling us that the progeny and Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet are the equals of the Holy Qur'an, and that the community should attach themselves to them.

Among these hadith are the hadith Thaqalain, hadith al-Safina, hadith al-Bab al-Hitta. Can you quote a single hadith in which the Holy Prophet said that his people after him should follow Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and Wasil Ibn Ata, etc. in the fundamentals and one of the four individuals - Malik Ibn Anas, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa, or Muhammad Ibn Idris Shafi'i?

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter IV, reports from Fara'id Hamwaini quoting from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said to the Commander of the Faithful: "O ‘Ali! I am the city of knowledge and you are its gate. No one can enter the city without having first entered the gate.

He is a liar who claims to love me while he is your enemy because you are from me, and I am from you. Your flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood, your soul is my soul, your appearance is my appearance. Blessed is the man who obeys you, woe be to one who disobeys you. Your friend is fortunate, and your enemy is in loss. One who is with you is successful, and one who is aloof from you is lost. After me, you and all the Imams in your progeny are like the ark of Noah: whoever boards it will be saved and whoever refuses to board it will be drowned. Their (the Imams') likeness is like that of the stars: when a star sets, another rises. This order will continue until the day of judgement."

It has been clearly narrated in the hadith al-Thaqalain (acknowledged by both the sects) that "If you are attached to the Ahlul Bayt, never, never shall you be misled." Even the fanatical Ibn Hajar Makki records his findings in his Sawa'iq Muhriqa, chapter 2 Sub-chapter, 1, page 92, in connection with the verse of the Holy Qur'an:

"And stop them, for they shall be questioned." (37:24)

And Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi has also quoted from Sawa'iq in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter 95, page 296, (printed in Istanbul) saying that this hadith has been narrated in different ways. Ibn Hajar says: "Verily, the hadith of Attachment to Two Great Things (Thaqalain) has been narrated in different ways. It has been narrated by more than 25 companions of the Holy Prophet."

Ibn Hajar says regarding the above Qur'anic verse that on the Day of Judgement, the people will be questioned about the Wilaya of ‘Ali and the descendants of the Prophet.

He writes that according to some sources, this hadith was narrated on the occasion of 'Arafa, and some say it was narrated when the Prophet was on his death bed with his apartment full of his Companions. Others say that it was included in his last address after his final Hajj.

Ibn Hajar gives his opinion regarding the different occasions of this hadith: "There is no inconsistency in the possibility that the Prophet, in his desire to show the glory of Qur'an and his Holy descendants, repeated this hadith on these and other different occasions.

It is reliably reported that the Prophet said: 'I leave among you two great things: if you follow them, you will never be misled. And these two are the Book of Allah (Qur'an) and my Ahlul Bayt.'"

Tabrani has reported this hadith with this addition: "I question you about these two: the Holy Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt, so do not try to outstrip them. Otherwise, you will be destroyed. Do not disregard them, otherwise you will be ruined. Do not try to teach them, for they know better than you."

Even the fanatical Ibn Hajar, after quoting from Tabrani and others, writes: "The Prophet called the Qur'an and his progeny, 'two great things' because these two are so weighty and dignified in every aspect." The Prophet also said: "I praise Allah who has filled the hearts of my Ahlul Bayt with wisdom." And the Prophet also said in a hadith referred to earlier: "....and never try to teach them (my progeny) anything since they are the most learned of you all. Consider them superior to all your ulama’ because Allah has created them pure and has introduced them to the Community with supernatural powers and innumerable other merits."

There is one point in the hadith which stresses attachment to the Ahlul Bayt: namely, that the successive generations of the Ahlul Bayt, will not be severed until the Day of Judgement. It is astonishing that some people admit that the members of the Ahlul Bayt possess great learning but violate the Prophet's orders and take as their religious leaders those who had no right of preference. Can you or we change the Holy Qur'an? Can we select any other book?

Sayyid: No, never. This is the Prophet's trust, a divine message, and the greatest source of guidance.

Well-Wisher: May God Bless you! You have spoken the truth. When we cannot change the Holy Qur'an and replace it with another book, the same principle must be followed regarding those who are the equals of the Holy Qur'an. So, according to which principle were those people who did not belong to the Prophet's progeny allowed to supersede his progeny?

I want a simple answer to this question so that we may know whether the three Caliphs - Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman - belonged to the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, and were included in the hadith we've mentioned (Thaqalain, Safina, Bab al-Hitta). If they are included, then we must follow them, according to the orders of the Prophet.

Sayyid: No one believes that any of the Caliphs except ‘Ali was included in the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. Of course, the three Caliphs mentioned were good companions of the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Did the Prophet tell us to follow a particular individual or group? If one faction says that it is expedient to follow other people, should we obey the Prophet or follow expediency as determined by the community?

Sayyid: It is obvious that obedience to the Prophet is obligatory.

Well-Wisher: After the Prophet has instructed us to follow the Holy Qur'an and his progeny, why have others been preferred? Did Abu'l-Hasan ‘Ali Ibn Isma'il Ash'ari, Wasil Ibn Ata, Malik Ibn Anas, Abu Hanifa, Muhammad Ibn Idris Shafi'i, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal belong to the progeny of the Prophet or the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali and his eleven descendants?

Sayyid: Obviously, no one ever said that these people belonged to the Prophet's progeny, but they were notable jurists and pious men of the community.

Well-Wisher: But according to the consensus of the community, the twelve Imams are the direct descendants of the Prophet. Your own ulama’ agree that they are the equals of the Holy Qur'an, and that obedience to them leads to salvation. Moreover, the Prophet said that they are the most learned of men.

In light of these emphatic injunctions, what reply will they give when the Prophet asks them why they violated his dictates and let others supersede his progeny? Is there any injunction from the Prophet that the Asharis or Mu'tazalis should follow their leaders or that the Malikis, Hanbalis, Hanafis, and Shafi'is should follow their leaders in the practice of the faith? Nobody so much as mentioned their names for 300 years after the death of the Prophet.

Only later, for political or other reasons which I am not aware of, they appeared on the stage. But the Imams and the descendants of the Holy Prophet were well known during the Prophet's own time. ‘Ali, Hasan, Husain and Fatima were known as Ahlul Kisa, that is "the people of the mantle."

They were the ones in whose praise "the verse of purity" was revealed. Is it proper to call those who follow ‘Ali, Hasan, Husain, and other Imams infidels? You have preferred those who did not belong to the progeny of the Prophet, to those who were ideal jurists.

What answer will you give in the divine court of justice when you will be asked as to why you misguided the poor people, why you called the followers of the Ahlul Bayt infidels and innovators?

You fault us because we are not the followers of the creeds of Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, or Shafi'is. And yet you don't follow ‘Ali, despite the clear and vivid injunctions from Allah and the Holy Prophet that you should do so. Without good reason, you follow one of the four schools of law and have closed the doors of jurisprudence.

Sayyid: We rely on the four Imams in the same way as you rely on the twelve Imams.

Well-Wisher: Well done! What a good thing you have said!

The number of the twelve Imams was not specified by the Shi’as or their ulama’ many centuries after the death of the Prophet. Many hadith, narrated from both Sunni and Shi’as sources, prove that the Prophet himself specified the number of the Imams as twelve.

Among your many ulama’ who have recorded this fact is Sheikh Sulayman Qanduzi Hanafi, who writes in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter 77, concerning the statement: "There will be twelve successors after me."

Yahya Ibn Hasan in his Kitabu'l-Umma has narrated in twenty ways that the Holy Prophet said that his successors would be twelve in number, and all of them would be from the Quraish. It has been narrated in three ways in Sahih. Bukhari, in nine ways in Sahih Muslim, in three ways in the Sunan of Abi Dawud, in one way in the Sunan of Tirmidhi, and in three ways in Hamidis Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahihain.

There are many of your ulama’, such as Hamwaini in Fara'id, Khawarizmi and Ibn Maghazili, each in his Manaqib, Imam Tha'labi in Tafsir and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, and Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda 10.

All have recorded 12 hadith narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas, Ubaya ibn Rabi'i Zaid ibn Haritha, Abu Huraira and the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali. All of these narrate in different, but similar, words that the Prophet said that the number of his successors and Imams would be twelve, and that all of them would be from the Quraish.

Some hadith say that they would be from the Bani Hashim. In some traditions, the specific names of the twelve successors have also been given. Some give only the number. I have cited only one example out of the many hadith of your ulama’. Now can you cite a single hadith indicating that the number of his successors would be four? Even if there were one such hadith, we would accept it in preference to our own.

Regardless of the fact that you cannot quote a single hadith about your four Imams, there is a great difference between the Shi’as Imams and your Imams. Our twelve Imams are the divinely appointed successors.

Regarding your Imams, only this much can be conceded: they possessed the knowledge of fiqh (jurisprudence) and could interpret the Holy Qur'an and the hadith. Some of them, like Abu Hanifa, according to the admission of your own ulama’, were not included among narrators of hadith, jurists, or mujtahids, but were people who relied on their own opinion. This in itself is evidence of their lack of knowledge.

On the other hand, the Shi’as Imams are divinely appointed guides, ordained successors of the Holy Prophet. Of course in every age there are some highly learned jurists and scholars among the Shi’as who interpret the commands of Allah, keeping in view the Holy Qur'an, the hadith, and the consensus of opinion. We follow the verdicts of such ulama’.

Although your jurists were pupils of, and derived most of their knowledge from, the Shi’as Imams, you blindly follow your elders, those of their students who deviated from the bases of knowledge and relied on speculation.

Sayyid: How can you claim that our Imams derived benefits from your Imams?

Well-Wisher: It is an historical fact that Imam Ja'far Sadiq excelled all others in knowledge. The eminent Alim, Nuru'd-Din ibn Sabbagh Maliki acknowledges in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma that the Holy Imam was conspicuousLy known for his learning. He writes: "People derived knowledge from him in different spheres. People came from distant lands to receive instruction. He became well known in all the lands and the ulama’ narrated more hadith from him than from any other member of the Ahlul Bayt...."

A large group of the distinguished people of the community, like Yahya Ibn Sa'id Ibn Jarih, Malik Ibn Anas, Sufyan Thawri, Abu Ainiyya, Abu Ayyub Sijistani, Abu Hanifa, and Saba - all have quoted his narrations.

Kamalu'd-Din Abi Talha also writes in his Manaqib that prominent ulama’ and religious leaders have quoted hadith from the Holy Imam and have gained knowledge from him. Among them he mentions the names of those mentioned in Fusulu'l-Muhimma. Even enemies acknowledged the merits of the Holy Imam.

For instance, Maliki in his Fusulu'l- Muhimma and particularly Sheikh Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Salmi in his Tabaqatu'l-Masha'ikh write: "Verily, Imam Ja'far Sadiq excelled all his contemporaries. He had instinctive knowledge and expertise in religion, complete piety in the world, abstinence from all worldly desires, and deep wisdom."

And Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i has recorded all these merits of the Holy Imam in his Matalibu's-Su'ul, chapter VI, page 81: "This learned man was of the distinguished leaders of the Ahlul Bayt. He was endowed with deep knowledge and was always in a state of remembrance of Allah. He often recited the Qur'an and gave its interpretation.

His companions gathered pearls from the sea of his knowledge. He divided his time in the day and night in different forms of devotion. A visit to him served as a reminder of the hereafter. To listen to his speech led one to adopt piety, and to follow his instructions led to the attainment of paradise. His luminous face signified that he belonged to the family of the Holy Prophet. The purity of his actions also showed that he was of the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

Many of the ulama’ have received hadith and gained knowledge from him. Among them were Yahya Ibn Sa'id Ansari, Ibn Jarih, Malik Ibn Anas, Sufyan Thawri, Ibn Ainiyya, Sha'ba and Ayyub Sijistani. All were grateful for their good fortune and privilege in learning from him."

Nawab: Shi’as believe in the twelve Imams. Why is Shi’as’ism associated with the name of Imam Ja'far Sadiq and called the Ja'farite sect?

Well-Wisher: Every prophet, in accordance with the divine command, appoints his successor. Muhammad declared ‘Ali to be his successor and ordered the community to obey him. But after the death of the Prophet, the caliphate was seized by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman.

During their caliphate, except during the earlier days, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar consulted ‘Ali on all matters and acted upon his counsel. Moreover, the great ulama’ and eminent scholars of other religions who came to Medina in search of religious knowledge were completely satisfied with their discussions with ‘Ali.

Throughout his life, ‘Ali continued to serve Islam in many ways. After his martyrdom, when the Bani Umayya became rulers, the imamate was cruelly suppressed. Imam Hasan Mujtaba, Imam Husain, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, and Imam Muhammad Baqir were victims of the extreme cruelty of the Umayyads. All roads of approach to them were closed and except for a few of their followers, others could not benefit from their knowledge. Every one of them was murdered.

In the beginning of the second century after the hijra, however, under the heavy pressure of the atrocities of the Umayyads, the people rose up against them. Bloody fighting ensued between the Bani Abbas and Bani Umayya. While the Bani Umayya were busy defending their own ruler, they could not continue their oppression of the Ahlul Bayt. Accordingly, Imam Ja'far Sadiq emerged from the seclusion imposed by the Umayyads. He instructed people concerning religious laws.

Four thousand lovers of knowledge gathered around his pulpit and quenched their thirst from the Holy Imam's limitless ocean of knowledge. Some of his chief companions have recorded four hundred doctrines which are known as Usul al-Arba'mi'atin - meaning "The 400 Verdicts."

Yafi'iy Yamani wrote that Imam Ja'far excelled all others in his knowledge. Jabir Ibn Hayyan Sufi, wrote a thousand-page compilation, listing nearly 500 booklets based on the teachings of Imam Ja'far.

Some of the great Sunni jurists were also his students. Abu Hanifa, Malik Ibn Anas, Yahya Ibn Sa'id Ansari, Ibn Jarih, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, Yahya Ibn Satid Qattan, Sufyan Ibn 'Uyayna, Sufyan Thawri - all benefitted from his immense learning. This great flowering of learning occurred at this time because the Bani Umayya obstructed the way of his ancestors, and unfortunately the Bani Abbas would restrain his descendants from speaking freely.

The reality of Shi’as'ism was unveiled and the merits of the Ahlul Muhammad were proclaimed by Ja'far Sadiq. Accordingly, this sect became known as "Ja'fari," but there is no difference between Imam Sadiq and any of the four Imams among his ancestors and the four Imams who preceded him or the six who came after him. All were divinely commissioned spiritual guides.

Although both friends and enemies recognized his excellence in knowledge and perfection in all merits, your predecessors refused to treat him as the most learned theologian and perfect man of his age. They refused to recognize his school of law along with the other four schools, even though he held the most exalted rank in learning and devotion, as admitted by your own ulama’. Since he belonged to the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet, he had a right to receive preference over others.

In spite of these factors, your fanatical ulama’ have shown such callous disregard for the progeny of their Prophet that your high-ranking theologians, like Bukhari and Muslim, would not even record hadith from this faqih (jurist) or the Ahlul Bayt.

Moreover, they did not quote hadith from any of the Imams or Sa'dat of the Holy progeny: Alawi, Husaini, Abidi, Musawi, Rizawi or from such ulama’ and jurists, like Zaid Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Husain, the Martyr, Yahya Ibn Zaid, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, Husain Ibn ‘Ali, Yahya Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hasan and his brother Idris, Muhammad Ibn Ja'far Sadiq, Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim, Muhammad Ibn Zaid, Abdullah Ibn Hasan, ‘Ali Ibn Ja'far (Arizi), and others, all of whom were outstanding ulama’ and jurists and who belonged to the family of the Prophet.

On the other hand, they have quoted hadith from people Like Abu Huraira, whose character is known to you all, and from the great liar and forger, Akrama, the Kharijite. Your own ulama’ have confirmed that these men were liars and yet, they accept their hadith with all their hearts. Ibn Bayyit writes that Bukhari has quoted as many as 1,200 hadith from the Kharijis and Nasibis, like Imam Ibn Hattan, the admirer of Ibn Muljim, the murderer of the Commander of the Faithful.

The followers of Imam al-Azam (Abu Hanifa), Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Hanbal consider them pure Muslims though none of them belonged to the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, and every one of those sects is free to adopt his own ways though there are great differences in fundamentals as well as practices among them. How regrettable it is that they call the followers of Ja'far Ibn Muhammad As-Sadiq infidels!

And in all places dominated by Sunnis, including Mecca, about which Allah says, "Whoever enters it is free," they are not free to express their faith or to perform their prayers. So you good people should know that we Shi’as are not the cause of differences in Islam; we have not brought about disunity among Muslims. As a matter of fact, much of the disruption appears from your side. It is you who call 100 million Muslims infidels, although they are faithful believers along with you.

Hafiz: It is true, as you said, that I am not an unjust man. I admit that there have been outrages due to fanaticism. I would like to say without any pretension or flattery, that I have benefitted greatly from your talk and have learned a great deal.

But with your permission, let me say one thing, which is a complaint, as well as a defense of the worthy Sunni Sect. Can you tell me why Shi’as preachers and ulama’ like you do not check your common people from making statements which lead to unbelief?

The result is that others get a chance to use the word unbelief against them. A man may become the target of attacks because he has made an improper assertion. So you people should also not make the Sunnis the target of your attacks. The Shi’as utter things which affect the hearts of the Sunnis, who in turn ascribe unbelief to the Shi’as.

Well-Wisher: May I know which statements or actions lead to unbelief?

Hafiz: The Shi’as find fault with the chief companions and some of the pure wives of the Prophet; this is obviously an act of unbelief. Since the companions fought for years with the Prophet against the infidels, it is obvious that their services were free from all moral imperfection. They certainly deserve Paradise, particularly those who gained divine blessings. According to the Holy Qur'an:

"Certainly Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you under thetree." (48:18)

There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet respected them. One who denies their excellence is certainly misled. The Qur'an says:

"Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)

Such a person denies the Holy Prophet and the Holy Qur'an, and one who denies them is undoubtedly an infidel.

Well-Wisher: I hoped that such topics would not be raised in this public meeting. My reply might reach the uninformed people, and they might spread adverse propaganda. It would be better if we discussed these matters privately. I will call on you some day, and we will solve this problem in private.

Hafiz: I am sorry, but many of our people for the past several nights have insisted that this topic be discussed. Your discussion is always reasonable. If you make a convincing reply, there will be no unpleasant repercussions. Otherwise, you concede the point to us.

Nawab: It is right. We all want the issue to be resolved here and now.

Well-Wisher: I only comply with your wish. I did not expect that an able man like you, after the complete explanations that I have given during previous nights on the question of infidelity would attribute infidelity to the Shi’as sect. I have already submitted complete proof that the Shi’as Ithna Asharis are the followers of Muhammad and his Holy descendants. You have raised several issues. I will reply to each of them separately.

First, you said that Shi’as criticism of the Companions (sahaba) and some of the wives of the Prophet leads to infidelity. I don't understand the basis of this statement. If criticism is supported by evidence, it may be allowed. And even if one makes a false charge, this doesn't make him an infidel. He would be called a sinner, like one who drinks wine or commits fornication. And certainly every sin against divine law is pardonable.

Ibn Hazm Zahiri Andalusi (born 456 A.H.) says in his book Al-Fasl fi'l-milal wa'n-Nihal Part III, page 227: "If one abuses the companions of the Prophet ignorantly, he is not to blame. If he does it with knowledge, he is a sinner like other sinners who commit fornication, theft, etc. Of course if he curses them intentionally since they are the companions of the Prophet, he is an infidel because such behavior' amounts to enmity against Allah and His Prophet. Otherwise, simply abusing the companions does not amount to infidelity."

Accordingly, Caliph ‘Umar asked the Prophet to permit him to behead Hatib, the hypocrite, although he was one of the great companions, a muhajir (emigre), and one who took part in the Battle of Badr. For his abusing and attributing hypocrisy to him, ‘Umar was not called an infidel. So how is it possible that the Shi’as should be called infidels for abusing some of the companions, supposing for the moment that what you say is correct.

Moreover, the great ulama’ of your sect have rejected your point. Among them is Qazi Abdu'r-Rahman Shafi'i, who in his Muwafiq has rejected the reasoning of your fanatic ulama’ about the infidelity of the Shi’as. And Muhammad Ghazali writes that cursing and abusing the companions is never an infidelity; even cursing the two sheikhs does not constitute infidelity.

Mulla Sa'd Taftazani writes in Sharhe Aqa'id al-Nas'i that "Some intolerant people say that those who curse the Sahaba are infidels. It is difficult to accept that view. Their infidelity is not proved because some of the ulama’ favored them, overlooked their evil deeds, and made foolish pleas in their support. They said that the companions of the Prophet were free from all sin, although this assertion was contrary to facts. Sometimes they fought among themselves.

Jealously and love for power often moved them to commit evil actions. Even some of the prominent sahaba were not free from sinful actions. So if, on the basis of some evidence, one criticizes them, he should not be condemned for it. Some people, because they favored the sahaba, covered up their evil actions. But some did record their evil actions and censured them."

Apart from this, Ibn Athir Jazari, the author of Jam'u'l-Usul, has included the Shi’as in Islamic sects, so how can you call them infidels? During the period of the first caliphs, some people cursed the sahaba for their evil deeds. Nevertheless, the caliphs did not order them to be put to death for their infidelity.

Accordingly, Hakim Nishapuri in his Mustadrak, Part IV, pages 335, 354, Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad Part 1, Page 9, Dhahabi in his Talkhise Mustadrak, Qazi Ayaz in his Kitab al-Shifa, Part IV, chapter 1 and Imam Ghazali in his Ihya'u'l-Ulum, Volume II, report that during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, a man came to him and uttered such filthy language and curses against him that those present there were moved to indignation. Abu Barza Salmi asked the Caliph if he would permit him to kill the man because he had become an infidel. Abu Bakr said that it could not be since no one except the Prophet could pass such a judgement.

In fact, the Sunni gentlemen surpass even those whom they support. The Caliphs themselves heard abuses and charged people with infidelity or ordered them to be killed. Moreover, if cursing the sahaba is a cause of infidelity, why don't you call Mu'awiya and his followers, infidels. They cursed and abused the most perfect of the sahaba, ‘Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Being selective in this matter only shows that your aim is something else.

You wish to fight against the Ahlul Bayt and their followers! If cursing the sahaba is infidelity, why don't you charge Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha with infidelity? All your historians have said that she frequently abused Caliph Uthman and openly declared: "Kill this old idiot, for truly he has become an infidel." If, however, a Shi’as says that it was good that Uthman was murdered because he was an infidel, you will instantly rise up against him.

But when A’ysha told Uthman to his face that he was na'thal and an infidel, neither the Caliph forbade her to do so nor did the sahaba reproach her. Nor do you find fault with her.

Nawab: Respected sir, what do you mean by the term na'thal?

Well-Wisher: Firuzabadi, who is one of your high-ranking ulama’, gives its meaning in his Qamusu'l-Lughat as "an old idiot." Also there was a Jew with a long beard in Medina with this name, with whom Uthman was compared. The commentator on Qamus, Allama Qazwini, also giving the same meaning, says that Ibn Hajar in his Tabsiratu'l-Muntaha, writes, "Na'thal, the Jew with a long beard, lived in Medina; he resembled Uthman very much."

Finally, if one who abuses the sahaba is an infidel, why did Caliph Abu Bakr, in the presence of sahaba and a gathering of Muslims, abuse the most exalted sahabi, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib? You praise the merits of Abu Bakr although you should condemn him.

Hafiz: Why do you falsely accuse him of this charge? When did Caliph Abu Bakr abuse Caliph ‘Ali?

Well-Wisher: Excuse me! We do not report anything until we have made complete inquiries. Perhaps you should consult Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume IV, page 80, where it is recorded that Abu Bakr, taunting ‘Ali from the pulpit of the mosque, said: "He (‘Ali) is a fox, the evidence of which is its tail. He creates disturbances, minimizes the importance of big disturbances, and incites people to make uproar.

He seeks help from the weak and accepts assistance from women. He is like Ummi't-Tahal (an adulteress in the days of ignorance, as explained by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) with whom the men of his family were fond of committing adultery."

Now you may compare Abu Bakr's abuse of ‘Ali with the criticism made by Shi’as against the sahaba. If abusing any of the sahaba amounts to infidelity, then Abu Bakr, his daughter, A’ysha, Mu'awiya and his followers should be labelled infidels. If it does not constitute infidelity, then you cannot call the Shi’as infidels on that score.

Moreover, according to the verdicts of your own great jurists and Caliphs, those who curse the Caliphs are not infidels. Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume III, Ibn Sa'd Katib in his Kitab al-Tabaqat, Qazi Ayaz in his Shifa, part IV of chapter 1, report that the governor of Caliph ‘Umar, Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz, wrote from Kufa that a man had reviled and abused ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, the second Caliph. The governor sought permission to execute the man. ‘Umar Ibn Khattab replied that it was not permissible to take the life of a Muslim for abusing or cursing any Muslim excepting one who abuses the Prophet.

Some of your prominent ulama’, like, Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and his followers, believe that if a man has faith in his heart and yet displays infidelity (by practicing Judaism or Christianity, for example) or rises up to fight against the Prophet, or calls Allah or the Prophet evil names, even then he is not an infidel. Faith means belief in the heart and since no one can be aware of another's heart, it cannot be said whether the apparent infidelity was from the heart or not.

The Ash'ari ulama’ have also discussed these issues in their books. Ibn Hazm Andalusi has written in detail about these points in his Kitabu'l-Fazl (Part IV, page 204, 206). In light of these facts what right have you to charge the Shi’as with infidelity?

But the Prophet didn't call these men infidels. He admonished them. (The narrations about these quarrels and mutual enmity are recorded only in the books of the Sunnis, not in Shi’as books).

In view of these remarks, I hope that you are satisfied that cursing or abusing any companion does not constitute infidelity. If we curse someone without any reason, we will be sinners, not infidels. And every sin is forgivable.

Second, you said that the Prophet respected and honored his companions. This is correct. In addition, all Muslims and men of learning agree that the Holy Prophet knew the good and bad actions of the people. He appreciated their good deeds.

Accordingly, he esteemed Nushirwan's justice and Hatim Ta'i's munificence. If he respected someone, it was for his good deeds. But appreciation shown to one for doing a good deed does not prove that his end will be fortunate.

Perhaps he will commit evil deeds in the future. If he does, upbraiding him beforehand is unjustified, even though it may be known that he will commit the sin in the future. ‘Ali knew of the sin and damned end of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi and repeatedly told him that he was his assassin.

At one point he explicitly said: "I want him to live, but he is bent upon killing me, and this treacherous friend belongs to the clan of the Murad." This statement has been recorded by Ibn Hajar Makki towards the end of Part I of Sawa'iq, page 72.

Yet ‘Ali did not intend to punish him. Hence the hadith, which indicates that the merit of some particular action or statement, is not necessarily influential for all time to come.

Third, you said that since the sahaba were at the Bai'at al-Rizwan and pledged their fealty to the Prophet, they were not subject to condemnation, but deserved praise because they are the referents of the Holy verse you cited [48:18].

Research scholars and ulama’ have commented extensively on this topic, saying that the divine pleasure of this verse refers only to the particular action, Bai'at (allegiance), and that it does not extend indefinitely.

You are aware yourselves that on the occasion of the Bai'at in Hudaibiyya, there were 1,500 people of the community present, of whom afterwards a number of people were included in the 'verses of hypocrisy'. Allah promised them Hell for ever.

Is it possible that Allah and the Prophet might be pleased with some people and that some of them might remain in hell forever? It follows that the divine pleasure was not due to the Bai'at al-Shajara (allegiance under the tree) alone, but was based on sincere faith and good deeds.

Those who believed in divine unity and Prophethood and pledged fealty deserved divine pleasure. They were declared to be the people of Paradise. But those who paid allegiance without faith, or who did not pay allegiance, deserved His wrath.

Obviously, the Sahaba performed commendable actions, and for their good actions (like allegiance under the tree) they should be praised. And even if a believer, whether he be a sahabi or not, commits a fault, he may be criticized.

The Shi’as sect has always reported the good performances of the sahaba.

Moreover, it acknowledges the good performance even of those who have been the targets of sharp criticisms. For instance, it appreciates their allegiance under the tree, their migration with the Holy Prophet, taking part in battles, but it also criticizes and condemns their bad actions.

Hafiz: I'm surprised to hear you say that the Prophet's companions committed misdeeds. The Prophet declared each of them the guide and leader of the community. He said in a well known hadith: "Verily, my companions are like stars; if you follow any one of them, you will be guided." Your faith is distinctly unconventional, and we do not accept unconventional faith.

Well-Wisher: I am constrained to discuss some aspects of this hadith before I venture to reply. Of course we will not talk about the source, correctness, or weakness of the hadith by way of criticism, for we would drift from the main point. Our discussion will focus on its meaning.

Those who were blessed with the honor of seeing the Holy Prophet, or who had narrated hadith from him, are called sahaba and ashab (companions) whether they were emigres (muhajir) from Mecca or those who helped them (ansars) in Medina or others.

The greatest misunderstanding among you is that, on account of your good will towards the companions, you consider all of them free from all faults although the fact is otherwise. Among the companions of the Holy Prophet, there were both good and bad people, of whom Allah and His Prophet were fully aware.

This can well be proved by the chapter Munafiqun (Hypocrites) and verses of some other chapters, like Tauba also known as Al-Bara'a (The Immunity) and Ahzab (The Clans), which were revealed in condemnation of companions who were hypocrites and sinners.

Your own prominent ulama’ have recorded some of the companions' faults and misdeeds in their authentic books. Hisham Ibn Muhammad Sa'yib Kalbi, one of the illustrious ulama’ of your sect has compiled a book on the faults and defects of the sahaba.

The hypocrites, whom Allah Almighty (in the Holy Qur'an) and the Holy Prophet have condemned, were two-faced people, who were Muslims in appearance only. Their hearts were stained with corruption and misguidance; and all of them were included in the companions.

So how can we have goodwill towards all the companions? And how can we be sure that following any of them will ensure salvation? Is it not a fact that in the affair of Aqaba there were companions who appeared to be faithful but were determined to kill the Holy Prophet?

Hafiz: Some ulama’ consider the Aqaba affair the invention of the Shi’as.

Well-Wisher: It is unkind of you to rely on the beliefs of some who have the mentality of the Kharijis and Nasibis. This affair is so clearly known to all that your own ulama’ have acknowledged it.

Please refer to Dala'ilu'n-Nabuwat compiled by Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Husain Baihaqi Shafi'i, who is one of your eminent scholars and jurists. He has recorded the story of Batn al-Aqaba with an authentic chain of narrators; and also Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, towards the end of v. V of his Musnad, reports from Abu Tufail, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, and it is known to all the ulama’, that the Holy Prophet on that night cursed a group of the companions.

Nawab: What was the matter, and who were those who wanted to kill the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: The great ulama’ of both sects have written that on Muhammad's way back from the Tabuk expedition; fourteen hypocrites conspired to kill him. The plan was to push him from his camel into a precipice as he rode by night over al-Aqaba, a narrow passage through which only one man could pass. When they tried to execute their design, the Angel Gabriel informed the Holy Prophet of it. The Holy Prophet sent Hudhaifa Nakha'i to hide behind a hill.

When the conspirators arrived and talked together, he recognized them all. Of them seven belonged to the Umayyads. Hudhaifa came to the Holy Prophet and named all of them. The Holy Prophet ordered him to keep the plot secret and said that Allah was their guard. In the early part of the night, the Holy Prophet began the journey, followed by his army. Ammar al-Yasir led the camel from the front and Hudhaifa drove it from behind.

When they reached the narrow passage, the hypocrites threw their leather bags full of sand (or their oil-cans) before the camel making a huge noise, hoping that the frightened animal would throw the Holy Prophet down the steep cliff. But Allah Almighty protected him and the conspirators fled away in the crowd.

Were these people not included among the companions? Is it true that to follow them means the path of guidance?

When we talk of the companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah why should we shut our eyes to their faults?

I have referred in past nights to Abu Huraira's character, telling you that Caliph ‘Umar had lashed him because he used to quote false hadith from the Prophet. Was he not among the companions? Had he not falsely narrated a large number of hadith? Similarly, were not the other companions, like Sumra Ibn Junda, included among them? Can the Holy Prophet of Allah order the community to follow liars and forgers?

If this hadith is correct, that is, that if we follow any one of the companions, we will be guided, then please let us know whom we should follow, if two companions go in opposite directions. Or if there are two groups of them, each fighting against the other, or each contrary to the other, whom should we support?

Hafiz: First, the revered companions of the Prophet of Allah were never hostile to each other. And even if one opposed the other, we should assess the facts properly. The one who is purer and whose statement is more logical should be followed.

Well-Wisher: If, according to your statement, we made careful inquiries and found one of them pure and on the right side, then the opposite group of the ashab must be impure and on the wrong side. Then this hadith basically loses credence because it is impossible that disagreeing companions can both be sources of guidance.

If this hadith is genuine why do you raise objection against the Shi’as because they followed a group of the companions like Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, Ammar al-Yasir Abu Ayyub Ansari, Hudhaifa Nakha'i and Khuzaima Dhu'sh-Shahadatain, etc., to whom I have referred in past nights?

These men certainly did not pledge fealty to Abu Bakr. Therefore, of the companions who opposed each other, who was on the right side? Decidedly one was on the wrong side though the hadith you have quoted tells us that we may follow any of the companions and be guided.

Was Sa'd Ibn Ubaida not one of the companions who did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar? All the Shi’as and Sunni historians unanimously hold that he went to Syria and lived there until in the middle of the caliphate of ‘Umar, he was murdered. So following him and opposing Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, according to this hadith is the path of guidance.

Were Talha and Zubair not among the companions who pledged allegiance under the tree? Did they not oppose the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet, the acknowledged fourth caliph according to your own belief. Were not these companions responsible for the bloodshed of innumerable Muslims?

Now please let us know which of these two groups of companions who fought with each other was the truly guided one. If you say that, since both groups were obedient both were on the right side, you will be wrong. It is impossible to claim that opposing factions are both guided.

It therefore follows that the companions who were on the side of ‘Ali were definitely the guided ones. The group on the opposite side took the wrong way; and this is another proof to refute your statement that all those companions who were present in Bai'at al-Rizwan, under the tree, were rightly guided.

Among those who pledged fealty under the tree were these two, Talha and Zubair, who also fought against the rightful caliph. They actually fought against the one about whom the Holy Prophet had said:

"O ‘Ali, fighting against thee is fighting against me." Doesn't it amount to fighting against the Holy Prophet of Allah? So how can you say that the word Ashab or presence under the tree of allegiance is a guarantee for salvation?

Mu'awiya and 'Amr As were companions and yet they fought against the successor of the Holy Prophet and cursed and abused ‘Ali at public meetings and even in the addresses given after Jum'a (Friday) prayers. They did so despite the fact, as reported by prominent ulama’ of your sect in their authentic books, that the Holy Prophet had repeatedly said, "He who abuses or curses ‘Ali, abuses me. He who abuses me, abuses Allah."

The learned Taftazani has elaborately dealt with this topic in his Sharhe Maqasid. He writes that since the companions were inimical to one another, some of them had deviated from the right path. Some of them, on account of envy and worldly aspirations, perpetrated all kinds of cruelty. It is evident that most of the companions who were not ma'sum (infallible) committed heinous acts. But some ulama’ because they favored them, have tried to cover up their faults.

There are many clear arguments to reject the hadith in question. There is no doubt that this hadith is forged. Many of your ulama’ have expressed their doubts about the authenticity of its sources.

After quoting this hadith in his Sharhu'sh-Shifa, v.II, p.91, Qazi Ayaz says that Darqutni in his Faza'il and Ibn Abdu'l-Birr say that this hadith is not authentic.

It is also narrated from Abd Ibn Hamid in his Musnad who quotes from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar that Bazar refused to acknowledge the authenticity of this hadith. Also he says that Ibn Adi quotes in his Kamil with his own references from Nafi, and he from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, that the sources of this hadith are very weak. Baihaqi is also reported to have written that the matter of this hadith is commonly known but its sources are weak.

Among the sources of this hadith are Harith Ibn Ghazin, whose character is unknown, and Hamza Ibn Abi Hamza Nussairi, who was charged with lying. The weakness of the hadith is evident. Ibn Hazm also says that this hadith is a fabricated one and is to be rejected.

So in our argument we cannot rely on a hadith with such a weak chain of sources. Even assuming, however, that the hadith were correct, it could not be applied in the general sense; it would refer only to the devoted and pious companions who, in accordance with the command of the Holy Prophet followed the book of Allah and the Holy progeny of the Prophet.

Having said this, if I criticize some of the companions, you shouldn't consider me unjust. They were after all, human beings and were likely to err.

Hafiz: We also believe that the companions were not infallible, but at the same time it is an accepted fact that all of them were righteous people. No fault was committed by them.

Well-Wisher: You claim too much if you insist that they were all just and free from faults since in the authentic books written by your own ulama’ they argue against it. They tell us that even some of the chief companions sometimes committed faults.

Hafiz: We are not aware of such records. Please let us know about them if you can.

Well-Wisher: Ignoring what they did during the days of ignorance (i.e. before the advent of Islam), they committed many sins after they had embraced Islam. It is enough to mention only one event by way of example.

Your own prominent ulama’ write in their authentic books that in the year of the conquest of Mecca (8 A.H.) some of the leading companions indulged in festive amusements and gaiety and secretly took wine.

Hafiz: This is definitely a concocted story. When drinking was announced to be unlawful, the respected companions did not so much as attend such parties, not to mention drinking wine.

Well-Wisher: It was never concocted by opponents. If it was concocted at all, it was done by your own ulama’.

Nawab: If there were such a party, the names of the host and the guests also must have been mentioned. Can you explain that point?

Ibn Hajar writes in his Fathu'l-Bari, v.X, p.30, that Abu Talha Zaid Ibn Sahl arranged a wine party at his house and invited ten people. All of them drank wine and Abu Bakr recited some couplets commemorating some infidels who were killed in the battle of Badr.

Nawab: Have the names of the guests also been mentioned? If so, please let us know.

Well-Wisher: (1) Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa, (2) ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, (3) Abu Ubaida Garra, (4) Ubai Ibn Ka'b, (5) Sahl Ibn Baiza, (6) Abu Ayyub Ansari, (7) Abu Talha (the host), (8) Abu Dajjana Samak Ibn Kharsa, (9) Abu Bakr Ibn Shaghuls, (10) Anas Ibn Malik, who was 18 years old at that time and who served the wine. Baihaqi in his Sunan, v. VIII, p.29, has also narrated from Anas him self that he said that he was the youngest of them at that time and was serving the wine. (At this there was great commotion in the meeting.)

Sheikh: I swear by Allah that this story has been concocted by the enemy!

Well-Wisher: You are too much agitated and you have made a profane oath! But you are not totally at fault. Your studies are limited. If you had read more widely, you would know that your own ulama’ have written all this. Now you should seek Allah's pardon.

I am now constrained to explain facts according to the statements of your own ulama’. Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Bukhari in Sahih (commenting on Ayat al-Khamr, "verse concerning wine", in the chapter Ma'ida of the Qur'an); Muslim Ibn Hajar in his Sahih (Kitab al-Ashraba Bab al-Tahrimu'l-Khamr); Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, v.XXX, p.181 and 227; Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, v.XI, p.93; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Durru'l-Mansur, v.II, p.321; Tabari in his Tafsir, v.VII, p.24; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Isaba, v.IV, p.22 and Fathu'l-Bari, v.X,p.30; Badru'd-din Hanafi in his Umdatu'l-Qari, V.X, p.84; Baihaqi in his Sunan, pp.286 and 290; and others have recorded these facts with detailed explanations.

Sheikh: Perhaps these things took place before wine was made unlawful.

Well-Wisher: What we gather from the commentary and history shows that even after the prohibitory verses some Muslims and companions continued taking forbidden wine.

Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari reports in Tafsir al-Kabir, v.II, p.203, on the authority of Abil Qamus Zaid Ibn ‘Ali, who said that Allah had revealed three times the verses prohibiting the use of wine. In the first verse He says,

"They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit." (2:219)

But the Muslims did not immediately give up wine. When two men, being intoxicated, offered their prayers and talked nonsense, another verse was revealed, saying:

"O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." (4:43)

Even after this, the drinking of wine continued, but people did not offer prayers while intoxicated. One day a man took wine (according to the report of Bazar, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Mardawiyya the man was Abu Bakr) and composed an elegy for the pagans who were killed in the battle of Badr.

When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he became angry. He went to the party and wanted to beat him. The man said, "I seek Allah's shelter from Allah's and His Prophet's wrath. Allah be my witness, I will not take wine again."

Then the following verse was revealed:

"O you who believe! Intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and(divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you maybe successful." (5:90)

Among the companions of the Holy Prophet there were good and bad men just as there are among other believers and Muslims. Those of them who tried to obey Allah and His Prophet reached an exalted rank. Those who followed their worldly aspirations were looked down upon by others. So those who fault the worldly companions do so with some reason.

The wicked actions of some of the sahaba which are recorded in the authentic books of your own ulama’ are also condemnable according to the evidence of the Holy Qur'an. The Shi’as condemn them on that basis. If there is a logical reply to this argument, we are ready to accept it.

Well-Wisher: It is astonishing that even after hearing their condemnable qualities (I have mentioned only a few out of a large number) you still ask me about their misdeeds! Now I should like to submit another example of their odious actions, which are recorded in all the books of both the sects: the breaking of their pledge. Allah has made it compulsory to keep one's promise. He says:

"And fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have made a covenant, and do not break the oaths after making them fast." (16:91)

And again Allah has called those who break a pledge the cursed ones. He says:

"And those who break the covenant of Allah after its confirmation and cut asunder that which Allah has ordered to be joined and make mischief in the land; (as for) those, upon them shall be a curse, and they shall have the evil issue of the abode. (13:25)

So it is clear both from the Qur'anic verses and from a large number of hadith that breaking a pledge is a great sin, particularly a pledge made with Allah and His Prophet. The seriousness of this offense was graver for the companions of the Holy Prophet.

Hafiz: What pledge with Muhammad did the companions break? How can it come under the target of the Qur'anic verses?

I think that if you consider the matter carefully you will admit that all these things are sheer concoctions of the Shi’as. The companions of the Holy Prophet were free from all such actions.

Well-Wisher: I have told you repeatedly that the Shi’as are pledged to follow their leaders. Otherwise they cannot be Shi’as. The Holy Qur'an has given evidence of their leader's truthfulness. Your prominent ulama’, for instance, Imam Tha'labi and Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in their Tafsir, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his Ma Nazal mina'l-Qur'an fi ‘Ali, Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.39, narrating from Khawarizmi, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim and Hamwaini and Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, ch.62 - all of them have quoted from the history of the great scholar Muhaddith al-Sham that in the Holy verse

"O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the truthful ones." (9:119)

The “truthful ones” refers to Muhammad and ‘Ali. So the followers of this exalted family cannot be liars or forgers because he alone would tell lies or fabricate stories who has no true and strong reasons to fall back upon this cause.

What the Shi’as say has been written by your own ulama’. First you should object to your ulama’, who wrote these things. Had your ulama’ not written about the pledge-breaking of the sahaba in their authentic books, I would not have mentioned it in this meeting.

Hafiz: Who of the Sunni ulama’ has written that the sahaba broke the pledge? Simply vain talking won't do.

Well-Wisher: I am not merely talking. My argument is completely logical. The companions broke their pledge a number of times. They broke the fealty for which the Prophet of Allah had commanded them; the most important was the pledge and fealty at Ghadir al-Khum.

All the Shi’as and Sunni ulama’ acknowledge that, in the 10th of the Hijra year, the Prophet of Allah, returning from his last pilgrimage, gathered together all his companions at Ghadir al-Khum on the 18th of Dhi'l-Hijja. Some of those who had gone ahead were called back by order of the Holy Prophet and those who had lagged behind were awaited.

Most of your ulama’ and the historians and the Shi’as sources give the figure of 70,000 people there, and some of your other ulama’, for instance Tha'labi in his Tafsir, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkirat'u- Khasa'isi'l-Umma fi Ma'rifati'l-A'imma and others have written that there were 120,000 people gathered there.

The Holy Prophet ordered a pulpit to be prepared. He mounted the pulpit and delivered a long sermon, a greater part of which contained the virtues and merits of the Commander of the Faithful. He recited most of the verses, which had been revealed in praise of ‘Ali and reminded the people of the Holy rank of the vicegerency of the Commander of the Faithful. Then the Holy Prophet said, "O you people! Have I not the greater claim than you have on your lives?" The reference is to the Holy verse

"The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves." (33:6)

The crowd with one voice shouted "Certainly, O messenger of Allah!" Then the Holy Prophet declared: "Of whomsoever I am the maula, (master) this ‘Ali is his maula." After this he raised his hand and prayed to Allah. "O Allah, be you a friend to him who is a friend to him (that is, ‘Ali) and be an enemy to him who is an enemy to him (‘Ali). Help him who helps him and forsake him who forsakes him.

Then a tent was pitched by order of the Holy Prophet who ordered the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali to sit in the tent. The whole umma was commanded to offer bai'at (allegiance) to ‘Ali. The Holy Prophet said that he gave this instruction in compliance with the command of Allah. The first one to offer allegiance on that day was ‘Umar. Then Abu Bakr, Uthman, Talha, and Zubair followed suit, and all these people continued offering allegiance for three days (i.e., while the Holy Prophet remained there).

Hafiz: Can you believe that an event of such importance occurred as claimed by you and that none of the prominent ulama’ have reported it?

Well-Wisher: I did not expect such a statement from you. The Ghadir al-Khum affair is as clear as day and no one but a bigoted and obstinate person would invite ignominy by denying such an event. This important matter has been recorded by all your pious ulama’ in their authentic books. I should like to mention here some of the names of the authors and their books so that you may know that all your eminent ulama’ have relied on this hadith.

24. Shahabu'd-din Ahmad Ibn Hajar Makki - Sawa'iq Muhriqa and Kitabu'l-Manhu'l-Malakiyya, particularly Sawa'iq, Part 1, p.25. In spite of his extreme fanaticism, he says: "This is a true hadith; its veracity cannot be doubted. Verily it has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nisa'i and Ahmad, and if studied, its sources are sound enough."

I have related the sources I could remember. But more than three hundred of your prominent ulama’ have narrated the hadith of Ghadir, the verses of baligh (preaching), kamalu'd-Din (perfection of religion), and the talk in the courtyard of the mosque, on the authority of more than one hundred companions of the Holy Prophet. If I were to relate the names of all these chroniclers, it would form a complete book. This much, however, is sufficient to prove that the hadith is unanimously accepted as true.

Some of your great ulama’ have written books on this topic. For instance, the well known commentator and historian of the fourth century hijri, Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari (died 310 A.H.), gives complete details of the hadith of Ghadir in his book Kitabu'l-Wilaya and has narrated it through seventy five chains of transmission.

Hafiz Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad Ibn Sa'id Abdu'r-Rahman Al-Kufi, popularly known as Ibn Iqda (died 333 A.H.), narrated this Holy hadith in his book Kitabu'l-Wilaya through 125 chains on the authority of 125 companions of the Holy Prophet.

Ibn Haddad Hafiz Abu'l-Qasim Haskani (died 492 A.H.), in his Kitabu'l-Wilaya, has narrated in detail the event of Ghadir along with the revelation of the verses of the Qur'an. In short, all your accredited scholars and high-ranking ulama’ (except a small number of fanatical opponents), quote the origin of this hadith from the Holy Prophet, who declared ‘Ali his vicegerent on the 18th of Dhu'l-Hijja in the year of his last pilgrimage.

It is also a fact that the Caliph ‘Umar was the first among the companions to express his pleasure on this occasion. Seizing ‘Ali by the hand, he said: "Congratulations to you, ‘Ali! This morning has brought you a great blessing. You have become my maula (master) and the maula (master) of all believing men and believing women."

The Shafi'i jurist, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani of the eighth-century hijri, one of the reliable scholars of your sect, writes in his book Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda V that a large number of the companions have quoted Caliph ‘Umar in different places as having said: "The Prophet of Allah had made ‘Ali the master, the chief and the leader of the nation.

He announced in a public gathering that he (‘Ali) was our maula (master). After praying for his friends and cursing his enemies, he said O Allah! You are my witness. (That is, 'I have completed my duty of prophethood.')

On this occasion a handsome and sweet smelling youth was sitting beside me. He said to me, 'Verily, the Prophet of Allah has bound with a covenant which none but a hypocrite would break. So ‘Umar! Eschew breaking it.'

I told the Prophet of Allah that when he was speaking to the crowd, a handsome, sweet smelling youth was sitting beside me and that he told me such a thing. The Holy Prophet said, ' He was not of the progeny of Adam, but was Gabriel, (who had appeared in that form). He wanted to stress the point which I had announced about ‘Ali.'"

Now I should like to seek justice from you, was it proper for them to break the firm covenant with the Prophet of Allah within two months, to go back on their pledge of sacramental allegiance to ‘Ali, to set fire to his house, to draw swords against him, to insult him, to drag him to the mosque to force his allegiance?

Hafiz: I did not expect that a respectable and cultured Sayyid like you would attribute worldliness to the companions of the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet declared them the source of guidance for the Community when he said: "My companions are like stars; if you follow any one of them, you will be guided."

Well-Wisher: First I should like you not to repeat the same thing time and again. You have just argued from the same hadith and I have given you its reply. The companions, like all others, were fallible. So when it is proved that they were not infallible, why should one wonder if, with proper evidence, worldliness is attributed to them?

Second, in order to clear your mind, I will again give you a reply, so that you may not rely on such hadith in the future. According to the research of your own eminent ulama’, this hadith is not reliable, as I have stated earlier.

Qazi Ayaz Maliki quotes from your own prominent ulama’ that since the narrators of this hadith include the names of the ignorant and uninformed Harith Ibn Qazwin and Hamza Ibn Abi Hamza Nasibi, who have been found to be liars; this hadith is not worth reporting. Also, Qazi Ayaz, in his Sharh al-Shifa and Baihaqi in his Kitab, have declared that this hadith is forged and have regarded its source as unreliable.

Third, I never said anything rude; I say only what your own ulama’ have written. I advise you to read Fazil Taftazani's Sharh al-Maqasid, in which he states clearly that there are many instances of hostility among the Companions, which shows that some of them had become sinners and tyrants. So we see that people are not to be honored merely because they were companions of the Prophet. Real honor lies in their deeds and character.

If they did not belong to the hypocrites but were obedient and faithful to the Holy Prophet they are certainly to be revered and respected. We would apply the dust of their feet to our eyes.

So, you men of justice, do you claim that the many hadith in your own reliable books concerning fighting against Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali (such as the Holy Prophet saying: "fighting against ‘Ali is fighting against me," are all baseless? Or do you admit that these hadith are perfectly authentic?

Are they not recorded with reliable sources in the books of your own distinguished ulama’? We need not mention that these hadith are recorded by Shi’as ulama’ with perfect unanimity of opinion in all their books.

If you accept these hadith, you must acknowledge that many of the companions were transgressors and sinners, as was Mu'awiya. ‘Umar Ibn As, Abu Huraira, Samra Ibn Jundab, Talha, Zubair all of whom rose to fight against ‘Ali in fact rose against the Holy Prophet himself.

And since they fought against the Prophet, they certainly deviated from the right path. So, if we said that some of the companions were slaves to their desires, we were not wrong, because what we said was true. Besides this, we are not alone in holding that some of the companions were sinners, tyrants, and transgressors. We base our stand on the authority of your own great ulama’.

If you study Sirru'l-Alamin, compiled by Abu Hamid Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ghazali Tusi, you would never object to what I say. I am, however, compelled to quote a portion of his fourth treatise in support of my statement.

He says: "Proof and reasoning became brighter, and there is unanimous accord among Muslims concerning the text of the address on the day of 'Ghadir al-Khum' that the Holy prophet said: 'Of whomsoever I am maula (master), ‘Ali is his maula (master).' Then ‘Umar immediately said, 'Congratulations to you, congratulations to you, O Abu'l-Hasan! You are my master and also the master of all faithful men and women.'"

This sort of congratulation clearly indicates the acknowledgment of the Holy Prophet's order, and acceptance of the leadership and caliphate of ‘Ali. But later on they were overpowered by their worldly desires. Love for power and authority deprived them of compassion. They took it upon themselves to appoint a caliph at Saqifa al-Bani Sa'dat. They wanted to raise the flag of their own ascendancy and to conquer territory so that their names might be preserved in history.

They were intoxicated with lust for power. They ignored the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an, and the orders of the Holy Prophet. They sold their religion for this world. What a bad bargain they made with Allah! When the Holy Prophet was on his death bed he asked for pen and ink so that he could clarify the issue of succession. (May God forgive my saying it), But ‘Umar said: "Leave this man. He is talking nonsense."

So when the Holy Qur'an and the hadith could not help them, they relied upon Ijma (consensus). But this is also void because Abbas, his descendants, ‘Ali, his wife and their descendants did not associate themselves with those who offered allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Similarly, the Saqifa men also refused allegiance to the Khazraji, and the Ansars rejected them also. Respected people! Please remember, the Shi’as do not claim anything except what your own fair ulama’ claim. But since you hate us, you find fault with what we say, however reasonable it might be. But you never criticize your own ulama’ as to why they have written such things although they have in fact revealed the truth and have stamped these realities on the pages of history.

Sheikh: Sirru'l-Alamin was not written by Imam Ghazali. His position was too lofty for him to write such a book, and notable ulama’ do not believe that this book was written by him.

Well-Wisher: Many of your own ulama’ have admitted that this book was written by Imam Ghazali. Yusuf Sibt Ibn Jauzi was careful in his references to other scholars (and was also a fanatic in his religion).

In his Tadhkira Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 36, he argues from the same statement of Imam Ghazali in his Sirru'l-Alamin and quotes the same passage which I have quoted. Since no comments have been made regarding it, it shows first that he acknowledges this book to be written by Imam Ghazali.

Second, he also agrees with his views, which I have briefly cited, although he himself cited them in detail. If he had not agreed with them he would have commented on them. But of course your fanatical ulama’ when they come across such statements of prominent scholars and find themselves unable to reject them logically, either say that the book was not written by that author, or that it was an invention of the Shi’as. Or they sometimes even go so far as to say that these just men were all sinners and infidels.

There is evidence that many of your distinguished ulama’ were persecuted simply because they spoke the truth. Fanatical ulama’ and uninformed people of your sect considered it unlawful to read nonconformist books. The authors of such works were even put to death as was Hafiz Ibn Iqda Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn Sa'id Hamadani who died 303 A.H. He was one of your prominent ulama’. Many notable scholars of your own sect, like Dhahabi and Yafi'i, have acknowledged him and said that he had learned 300,000 hadith with their sources and that he was a man of great piety.

At public gatherings in Kufa and Baghdad in the third century A.H., he openly narrated the failings of the Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.) People therefore called him Rafizi and refrained from quoting hadith from him. Ibn Kathir Dhahabi and Yafi'i write about him: "Sheikh Ibn Iqda sat in the Basra Mosque (a famous Mosque between Baghdad and Kazimain) and narrated the defects and shortcomings of the Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) to the people.

For this reason the hadith reported by him have been rejected. Otherwise there is no doubt about his being a true and pious man." Al-Khatib Baghdadi also has praised him in his Ta'rikh but in the end he says: "Since he described the defects and failings of the Sheikhs, he was a Rafizi."

So you people should not be under the impression that it is only the Shi’as who expose the truth of these issues. Your own great ulama’ like Imam Ghazali and Ibn Iqda used to point out the flaws in the chief companions.

In every era of history there have been many instances of ulama’ who have been tortured or persecuted on account of their speaking or writing the truth. For instance the well known commentator and historian Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, who was the pride of your ulama’, died in 310 A.H. in Baghdad.

But because the authorities feared a civil disturbance, they refused to allow his coffin to be taken out during the day. Perforce he was laid to rest in his own house during the night.

Another instance of persecution was Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Nisa'i's murder. He was a dignified man and is regarded as one of the Imams of Sahih Sitta (Six Authentic Books). He belonged to the high-ranking ulama’ of your sect in the 3rd century A.H.

When he reached Damascus in 303 A.H., he saw that, because of the Bani Umayya, the residents of that place openly abused the name of Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib after every ritual prayer, particularly in the address of congregational prayers.

He was much grieved to see this and he decided to collect all the hadith of the Holy Prophet in praise of Amiru'l-Mu'minin with the chain of their sources, all of which he remembered. Accordingly, he wrote a book, Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, in support of the exalted position and virtues of ‘Ali. He used to read to the people from the pulpit the hadith from his book the praises of the Holy Imam.

One day when he was narrating the high merits of ‘Ali, a rowdy group of fanatics dragged him from the pulpit and beat him. They punched his testicles and, catching hold of his penis, dragged him out of the mosque and threw him into the street. As a result of these injuries he died after a few days. His body was taken to Mecca where he was laid to rest. These events are the consequence of enmity and ignorance.

Now I beg your pardon that I have been driven a little far from my point. What I meant was that the position of Wilaya (Vicegerency) of Amiru'l-Mu'minin was not recorded by the Shi’as ulama’ alone. Your own prominent ulama’ have also narrated that the Holy Prophet in the presence of 70,000 or 120,000 people, raised ‘Ali's hands and introduced him as Imam (leader and guide) of the people.

Hafiz: Of course there is no doubt about the occasion and the text of this hadith, but at the same time it does not have the significance which your passionate eloquence suggests.

Apart from this, there are some doubts regarding the text of this hadith. For instance, the word "maula," you told us, means, "one who has a greater claim on others," although it is known that in this hadith "maula" means "lover, helper and friend."

The Prophet knew that ‘Ali had many enemies, and so he wanted to exhort the people that whomsoever he loved or was friend or helper to, ‘Ali also loved him and was his friend and helper. The reason he demanded allegiance from the people was that he did not want them to cause ‘Ali trouble.

Well-Wisher: I think you sometimes unnecessarily adopt the habits of your predecessors. If you would consider the facts carefully, the truth of this issue would become clear.

Hafiz: What are the facts which prove your point of view? Please let us know.

Well-Wisher: The first proof is the Holy Qur'an and the revelation of the verse: "O Apostle! deliver that which has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people." (5.67)

Hafiz: How can you claim that this verse was revealed on that day and for this purpose?

In short, as far as I know, thirty of your leading ulama’ have written in their authentic books and in their own commentaries that this Holy verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir al-Khum in regard to Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali.

Even Qazi Fazl Ibn Ruzbahan, despite all his ill will and fanaticism, writes: "Verily it is proved in our authentic Sahih that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet of Allah holding ‘Ali by the hand, said: 'To whomsoever I am the maula (master), this ‘Ali is also his maula.'"

It is, however, very surprising the same perverted Qazi in Kashf Ghumma gives a strange report from Razi Ibn Abdullah: "In the days of the Holy Prophet we used to read this verse thus: 'O our Prophet (Muhammad) deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord, that is, ‘Ali is the master of the believers. If you do not, then you have not delivered His message.'"

Also Suyuti in his Durru'l-Mansur from Ibn Mardawiyya, Ibn Asakir and Ibn Abi Hatim from Abu Sa'id Khadiri, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud (one of the writers of Wahi - revelations) and Qazi Shukani in Tafsir al-Fathu'l-Ghadir narrate that in the day of the Holy Prophet they also recited that verse in that very way.

In short, the warning contained in this verse says: "If you do it not then (it will be as if) you have not delivered His message (at all)..." shows that the message which the Holy Prophet had been ordered to deliver was of great importance. It was in fact essential to the completion of Prophethood itself.

Therefore, the issue in question was surely the matter of the imamate, the conferring of authority on one who would guide the people according to the tenets of Islam after the death of the Holy Prophet.

The second circumstance which proves my point is the revelation of the verse:

"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam for a religion." (5:3)

Hafiz: But it is an admitted fact that this verse was revealed on the day of Arafa, and no one of the ulama’ has claimed that it was revealed on the day of Ghadir.

Well-Wisher: I ask you not to make undue haste in denying this fact.

Of course, I admit that some of your ulama’ have said that this verse was revealed on the day of Arafa, but a large number of your reputable ulama’ have also said that it was revealed on the day of Ghadir. Also some of your ulama’ hold the view that perhaps this verse was revealed twice, once at the close of the day of Arafa and then again on the day of Ghadir.

Accordingly, Sibt Ibn Jauzi says in his Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 18: "It is probable that this verse was revealed twice, once on the day of Arafa and once on the day of Ghadir al-Khum, just as the verse: 'In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful' was revealed twice, once in Mecca and then again in Medina."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira al-Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 18; Abu Ishaq Hamwaini in Fara'id-us-Simtain, ch. XII; Abu Sa'id Sijistani in Kitabu'l-Wilaya; Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in Ta'rikh al-Baghdad, vol. VIII, p. 290; Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i in Manaqib, ch. XIV and Maqtalu'l-Husain, ch. IV, all have written that on the day of Ghadir al-Khum the Holy Prophet appointed ‘Ali by divine order to the rank of wilaya (Vicegerent).

He told the people whatever he was ordained to say about ‘Ali and raised his hands so high that the white of both his armpits was visible. He addressed the people thus: "Salute ‘Ali because he is the amir (lord) of the believers. The whole Community complied with his order. They had not yet departed from one another when the aforesaid verse was revealed."

The Holy Prophet was highly pleased with the revelation of this verse. So, addressing the people, he said: "Allah is Great, He who has perfected for them their religion and has completed His favor on them and is satisfied with my Prophethood and ‘Ali's vicegerency after me."

Imam Haskani and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal have given the complete details of this event. If you, respected people, would leave behind your preconceived ideas on this matter, you would understand the Holy verse and hadith, which show that the word "maula" means "wali" (master) i.e., one having authority over all others.

If "maula" or "wali" did not mean "one who has a greater claim on others," the latter phrase "after me" would be meaningless. And this sentence, which the Holy Prophet repeatedly uttered from his sacred tongue, proves that "maula" and "wali" mean "one who has greater claim on all others," because he said that rank in particular was granted to ‘Ali after him.

Third, you might consider the circumstances. In that hot desert, where there was no protection for the travellers, the Holy Prophet gathered the whole umma. People sat in the shade of the camels, with their feet covered, in the scorching heat of the sun. In these conditions the Prophet delivered a long address, which Khawarizmi and Ibn Mardawiyya in their Manaqib, and Tabari in his Kitabu'l-Wilaya and others have narrated.

Does it make sense to think that the Prophet would require thousands of his followers to spend three days in the blazing desert to swear allegiance to ‘Ali merely to indicate that ‘Ali was their friend? In fact there was no one in the whole Community who did not already know the close association between the Holy Prophet and ‘Ali or had not heard about him (as I have already pointed out earlier). The revelation of the

Qur'anic verse in question for the second time, particularly in different circumstances and with such serious instructions that people might be put to great inconvenience and suspense, could not simply mean that they should be friends of ‘Ali. Either the Holy Prophet's performance was meant to indicate great significance or it was frivolous. And certainly the Holy Prophet is free from all frivolous actions.

It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that these arrangements were made not merely to indicate that people should befriend ‘Ali. The event, in fact, marked the completion of the Prophet's message: the establishment of the Imamate, the source of the umma's guidance after the death of the Prophet.

Some of your reputable ulama’ have acknowledged that the primary meaning of "maula" is "master." Among them is Sibt Ibn Jauzi, who after giving ten meanings of the word in his Tadhkira al-Khawas, ch. II, p. 20, says that none of them except the tenth one corresponds with what the Holy Prophet meant to say.

He says: "The hadith specifically means obedience; so the tenth meaning is correct, and it means 'mastery over others.' Hence, the hadith means 'of whomever I am the 'maula' (master) ‘Ali is also his 'maula' (master).'"

In the book Maraju'l-Bahrain Hafiz Abdu'l-Faraj Yahya Ibn Sa'id Saqafi interprets it in the same way. He narrates this hadith with his own sources from his leaders, who said that the Holy Prophet, holding ‘Ali by the hand, said: "Of whomsoever I am 'wali' or master over himself, ‘Ali is also his 'wali' or master over himself."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi says, "The saying of the Holy Prophet that ‘Ali has authority or is the master over the selves of all the believers clearly proves the Imamate or vicegerency of ‘Ali and that obedience to him is obligatory."

Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul in the middle of Part V, ch. 1, p. 16, says that the word maula has many meanings, for instance: "master," "helper," "successor," "truthful one," and "leader." He then says that this Holy hadith furnishes an inner interpretation to the verse of Mubahala. (3.61)

In it Allah Almighty has called ‘Ali the 'self' of the Holy Prophet. There was no separation between the self of the Holy Prophet and the self of ‘Ali since He combined the two with the pronoun referring to the Holy Prophet.

Muhammad Ibn Talha adds: "In this hadith the Holy Prophet indicated that whatever obligations the believers had in respect to him, they had also in respect to ‘Ali. As the Holy Prophet was certainly master of the believers in all of their matters, their helper, leader, and chief - all of these being connotations of the word "maula" - then it follows that he meant the same thing for ‘Ali (a.s.) also.

And this is of course, an exalted position, an eminently high rank, which was specifically assigned to ‘Ali. It is for this reason that the Day of Ghadir was a day of eid and rejoicings for the lovers and friends of ‘Ali."

Hafiz: In view of your statement, since the word "maula has a number of meanings, it would be wrong to conclude that it was used in this case to indicate a single meaning, "master," to the exclusion of other meanings.

Well-Wisher: You are well aware of the basic principles of scholars that while a word may have different meanings, it has only one basic meaning and that the rest of the meanings are derived. The basic meaning of the word "maula" or "wali" is master.

For instance, the "wali" of "nikah" (wedlock) means one who acts as attorney, or trustee. The "wali" of a woman is her husband; the "wali" of a child is his father, who has full authority over him. The "wali ahd" (heir apparent) of a king means "one whose right to rule cannot be denied if he outlives the ancestor."

Apart from this, your objection recoils upon you as to why you have restricted its meaning to "friend" and "helper" when it has many other meanings. So this specification without any specific object is void. The objection you have made comes back to you and not to us because the meanings that we have specified are not without the specified object. The verses of the Holy Qur'an, the hadith, and the opinions of scholars, all prove the same meaning which we have given.

Among these are the reasons which your own prominent ulama’, like Sibt Ibn Jauzi, Muhammad Ibn Abi Talha Shafi'i have given regarding its meaning. Moreover, it is narrated in a large number of hadith both from your sources and mine that this Holy verse was read thus:

"O Prophet of Allah! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord about ‘Ali's wilaya (vicegerency) and his being master of the believers."

Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, who is one of your reputable ulama’ has collected these hadith in his book Durru'l-Mansur.

If this hadith and the word "maula" had not been proof of ‘Ali as Imam and Caliph, Amiru'l-Mu'minin would not have repeatedly argued from it. In fact in the committees of counselors he referred to it as evidence for his Imamate, as Khatib Khawarizmi in his Manaqib, p. 217; Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Hamwaini in his Fara'id, ch. 58; Hafiz Ibn Iqda in Kitabu'l-Wilaya; Ibn Hatim Damishqi in Durru'n-Nazim, and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p. 61, have recorded it. Particularly important is the evidence given by thirty companions at Rahba.

Many of your distinguished ulama’ have narrated the discussion ‘Ali led with the Muslims at Rahba al-Kufa (i.e., in the courtyard of the Kufa mosque). Following is a partial listing of those who recorded this event.

‘Ali stood before the people and asked them to bear witness about what they had heard the Holy Prophet saying about him at Ghadir al-Khum. Thirty of the companions, including twelve Badris (those who had fought in the Battle of Badr), stood up and said that they saw on the Ghadir al-Khum day the Holy Prophet holding up Hazrat ‘Ali's hand and saying to the people:

"Do you know that I have greater claim on the believers than they have on their own selves?" All of them said: "Yes." Then the Holy Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am "maula" (master), this ‘Ali is his "maula" (master)."

Out of this gathering three men did not bear witness to the event. One of them was Anas Ibn Malik, who said that because he had become enfeebled with old age he had forgotten all about it. ‘Ali cursed the three.

He said: "If you are telling lies, may Allah afflict thee with leprosy, which even your turban would not conceal." No sooner did Anas stand up from his place when leprosy appeared on his body. (According to some reports he became both blind and a leper.)

Well-Wisher: Fourth, the way in which the hadith has been narrated in itself proves that the work "maula" means "master." The Holy Prophet, in his address at Ghadir, asked the people: "Have I not a greater claim on you than you have on yourselves?" This refers to the words of the Holy Qur'an:

"The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves." (33:6)

Moreover, there is a reliable hadith in the books of both sects which records that the Holy Prophet said: "There is no believer on whom I have not a greater claim in this world and in the Hereafter, than he has on himself.

All of them said with one voice that he had a greater claim on them than they had on themselves. After that the Holy Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am the "maula," this ‘Ali is also his "maula." So from the context of his speech, it follows that the Holy Prophet meant "authority" or "mastery over others" when he used the word "maula."

Hafiz: In many of the books there is no such record of the Holy Prophet having said these words: "Have I not a greater claim on you than you have on your own selves?"

Well-Wisher: In narrating the hadith of Ghadir, narrators have used slightly different words, but so far as the hadith of the Shi’as are concerned, all of the Ithna Ashari ulama’ say that the text and context of hadith of Ghadir are as narrated above.

And in most of the authentic Sunni books, written by your prominent ulama’, like Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira al-Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 18; Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Musnad; Nuru'd-din Sabbagh Maliki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma; and a host of others who have narrated hadith of Ghadir, the sentence "Have I not a greater claim on you than you have on yourselves" does exist.

Now for the sake of blessedness I submit the translation of this hadith which has been narrated by the Imam of the traditionists, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in his Musnad, vol. IV, p. 281, on the authority of Bara'a Ibn Azib.

He said: "I was travelling with the Holy Prophet. We reached Ghadir. The Holy Prophet announced: 'Assemble for prayers.' It was customary when something serious was about to happen that the Holy Prophet ordered the people to assemble for prayers.

When the people had assembled and prayers had been offered, the Prophet used to preach a sermon. A special place was provided for the Holy Prophet between two trees. After the performance of the prayers the Holy Prophet, raising ‘Ali's hand above his head, spoke to the crowd: 'Do you not know that I am the master of the believers and have more rights over them than they over their own selves?' All of them said, 'Yes, we know that.' He again said, 'Do you not know that I have greater rights over every believer than he has over his own self?'

All of the answered, 'Yes, we know it.' Thereafter the Holy Prophet said, 'Of whomsoever I am the maula (master) this ‘Ali is his maula (master).' Then he prayed to Allah: 'O Allah! Be a Friend of him who is a friend of him (i.e. ‘Ali) and be an enemy of him who is an enemy of him.' Immediately following this, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab met ‘Ali and said, 'Congratulations to you, O son of Abu Talib! You have now become maula (master) of all the believing men and women.'

Also Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda V; Sulayman Balkhi in his Yanabi and Hafiz Abu Nu'aim in his Hilya have recorded this hadith with slight variations in the wording.

Hafiz Abu'l-Fatha, from whom Ibn Sabbagh also had quoted in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, has narrated this hadith in these words: "O people! Allah Almighty is my "maula" (master), and I have a greater right over you than you have over yourselves. You should know that of whomsoever I am the 'maula' (master) ‘Ali is also his 'maula' (master)."

Ibn Maja Qazwini in his Sunan and Imam Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in his hadith (pp. 81,83,93,24) have narrated this hadith in the same way.

And Zaid Ibn Arqam writes in his hadith No. 84 that the Prophet of Allah said in the course of his address: "Do you not know that I have a greater authority over all believers, men or women, than they have over themselves?" All of them said: "We bear witness that you have greater authority over every believer than he has over his own self." At that time the Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am the maula (master) this ‘Ali is also his maula (master)." Then he raised the hand of ‘Ali.

In addition Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Al-khatib Baghdadi (died 462 A.H.), in his Ta'rikh al-Baghdad, Vol. 8, pp. 289, 290, has narrated a detailed hadith from Abu Huraira that if any one fasts on the eighteenth day of Dhu'l-Hijja (The Day of Ghadir), he will be rewarded for sixty months of fasting. He then records the above hadith in the same way.

The fifth circumstance to prove the wilaya (vicegerency) of ‘Ali is the reading of his couplets, which Hasan Ibn Thabit read with the permission of the Holy Prophet, in the gathering in which ‘Ali's rank of Vicegerent was announced. Sibt Ibn Jauzi and others have written that when the Holy Prophet heard those verses, he said, "Oh, Hasan! so long as you continue helping us or praising us with your tongue, ruhu quds, the Holy spirit, will also be supporting you."

The well known commentator and narrator of hadith of the fourth century A.H., Hafiz if Ibn Mardawiyya (died 352 A.H.), in his Manaqib; the Chief of the Imams, Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad Khawarizmi in Manaqib and Maqtalu'l-Husain, part IV; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Risalatu'l-Azhar fi ma Aqdahu'sh-Shu'ara and many of your scholars, narrators and historians report from Abu Sa'id Khadiri that on the day of Ghadir al-Khum, after the address of the Holy Prophet and the appointment of ‘Ali as his successor, Hasan Ibn Thabit said: "Do you permit me to recite some couplets on this occasion?"

The Holy Prophet said: "Yes, recite with Allah's blessings." So he stood up at a raised spot and recited spontaneously composed verses. The meaning of the verses is as follows:

"On the Day of Ghadir al-Khum, the Holy Prophet called together the umma, and I heard his voice calling them. The Prophet said to the people, "Who is your maula and wali?" The people said clearly, "Allah is our maula (Lord) and you are our wali (Guardian) and no one denies this fact." So then the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali: "Stand up! I am content with your becoming the imam (vicegerent) and hadi (guide) after me. So of whomsoever I am the maula (master) this ‘Ali is also his maula (master).

Hence, all of you people should loyally and faithfully help him." Then the Prophet prayed to Allah: "O Allah! Be a friend of him who is a friend of him (‘Ali) and be an enemy of him who is enemy of him."

These couplets are a clear proof of the fact that on that day the companions of the Holy Prophet did not interpret the word "maula" in any other way except "imam" and that ‘Ali would be the caliph after the Prophet died. If the word "maula" did not mean "imam" or master over others, the Prophet would have at once interrupted Hasan when he had recited the line: "I am content with your being imam and guide after me," and would have told him that he was mistaken and that he did not mean ‘Ali to be the imam and successor after him and that he meant by the word "maula" "friend" or "helper."

But in fact the Holy Prophet supported him by saying "Ruhu'l-Quds will also be supporting you." Apart from this, the Holy Prophet clearly explained the position of imamate or wilaya (vicegerency) of ‘Ali in his sermon.

You should study the sermon of the Holy Prophet, which he delivered on the Ghadir al-Khum day and which has been reported in full by Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari (died 310 A.H.) in his book Kitabu'l-Wilaya. He writes that the Prophet said: "Listen and obey. Verily, Allah Almighty is your maula and ‘Ali is your imam. Until the Day of Judgment the imamate will belong to my progeny, the descendants of ‘Ali."

Whatever interpretation you may give to the word "maula," it is an acknowledged fact that the companions made a promise to the Prophet on that day. There is complete concurrence between the two sects on this point. Then why did they break that pledge?

Even if we suppose for the moment that by maula the Holy Prophet meant merely "friend" or "helper," for Allah's sake tell us if you think that friendship meant that they should set fire to ‘Ali's house, terrify his family, and threaten him with drawn swords.

The Prophet gave clear instructions that the companions should pledge allegiance to ‘Ali. Do you think that he intended that they should therefore terrorize his own son-in-law? After the death of the Prophet, didn't they break their pledge? Did they, who broke the pledge, fulfill, in your opinion, the conditions of friendship? Did they read verse 15 of ch. 13, Al-Ra'd (the Thunder) of the Qur'an?

"And those who break the covenant of Allah after its confirmation and cut asunder that which Allah has ordered to be joined and make mischief in the land; (as for) those, upon them shall be a curse, and they shall have the evil (issue) of the abode." (13:25)

In the battles of Uhud and Hunain, when the Holy Prophet had made all his companions promise that they would not run away that day, didn't they actually run away? They ran from the battlefield and left the Holy Prophet to face the enemy. This has been recorded by your own historians, like Tabari, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, and Ibn A'same Kufi. Wasn't this breaking a solemn pledge?

I swear by Allah that you unreasonably find fault with the Shi’as when we say only what your own renowned ulama’ and historians have said.

I don't understand why you people have been attacking us for generations. Whatever you write is accepted, but if we write what the great Sunni ulama’ have written, we are labelled as infidels simply because we criticize the injustice of some of the companions.

If, however criticism of the companions means Rafizi'ism, then apparently all the companions were Rafizis, because all of them criticized one another's bad actions. Even Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did so.

Some of the Prophet's companions were pious believers and were highly respected. Others indulged their lower desires and were condemned. If you want historical proof of this fact, I suggest that you read Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.IV, pp. 454, 462, and study Zaidi's detailed reply to Abu'l-Ma'‘Ali Juwaini's objection, which Abu Ja'far Naqib has recorded. Then you will know how much controversy existed among the companions, who in fact cursed one another as sinners and infidels.

In his account of the Hudaibiyya affair, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, and others of your historians have also written that, after the conclusion of the treaty of peace, most of the companions, including ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, expressed their anger concerning the terms of the treaty. They told the Holy Prophet that they were not satisfied with peace and wanted to fight. The Holy Prophet said that if they wanted to fight, they were at liberty to do so. So they attacked.

But the companions suffered a crushing defeat and fled to the hills and did not even return to protect the Holy Prophet. Then the Holy Prophet asked ‘Ali to draw the sword and repel the Quraish. Seeing ‘Ali before them, the Quraish drew back. Later the companions who had fled returned and begged the Prophet's pardon.

The Holy Prophet said to them: "Do I not know you! Are you not the same people who trembled in fear in the Battle of Badr until Allah Almighty sent angels for our help! Are you not the same companions of mine who on the Day of Uhud fled to the hills and left me unprotected? Although I kept on calling you, you did not return."

The Holy Prophet recounted all their weaknesses, and they continued expressing their regret for their actions. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says at the conclusion of his work that this rebuke was directed specifically against ‘Umar, who did not believe any of the promises made by the Holy Prophet. Then he writes that, in light of the statement of the Holy Prophet, Caliph ‘Umar must have fled from the Battle of Uhud because in his talk the Holy Prophet had referred to that also.

Now you can yourself see that if we relate this fact, which is recorded by your eminent ulama’ like Abi'l-Hadid and others, we shall at once be subjected to attack because we have insulted the Caliph, but there is no objection to Abi'l-Hadid. In fact we have no intention of insulting anybody. We merely relate historical facts, and you look at us with scornful eyes. You ignore those facts.

The Shi’as will have many complaints on the Day of Judgment against your ulama’. The world will perish, but you must appear in Allah's Court of Justice to answer for your oppression.

Hafiz: Please tell me for what oppression you will seek justice on the Day of Judgment?

Well-Wisher: There are instances which I might cite. When the Day of Divine Justice comes I will certainly seek justice.

Hafiz: I ask you not to excite the emotions of others. Tell us what oppression you have suffered.

Well-Wisher: Oppression and tyranny is not a new thing for us today. But its foundation was laid immediately after the demise of our ancestor, the Holy Prophet. The right of our oppressed grandmother, Fatima Zahra, which was bequeathed to her by her father, the Holy Prophet, for the bringing up of her children, was usurped. No notice was taken of her complaints and protestations.At last she passed away in the prime of her youth with a broken heart.

Hafiz: Please you are unnecessarily exciting the people. Tell us what right of Fatima was usurped? Please remember that if you fail to prove your claim you will, to some degree, fail in the Divine Court of Justice. Please yourself to be in the Divine Court of Justice and argue your case.

Well-Wisher: One day we shall be before the Divine Court. We expect justice. If you too have a sense of justice you should, like a just judge listen to my submissions without prejudice. I believe you will acknowledge the validity of our claim.

Hafiz: I swear that I have no prejudice or stubborness. Surely you have observed during these nights that I do not argue perversely. When I have heard reasonable arguments I have accepted them. My silence was an indication itself of my accepting the just cause. By nature I am not disposed to quarrel. I admit that before I met you here, I wanted to defeat you.

But I have been so impressed by your purity, your politeness, good manners, simplicity, and sense of reality, that I have taken a solemn vow before Allah that I bow down to accept all logical facts even though this posture might disappoint the expectations of others.

Believe me, I am not the man of the first night. I tell you quite frankly that your arguments have left a deep impression on my heart. I earnestly hope that I may die with love and affection for the Holy Prophet and his descendants, so that I may stand happy and contented before the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Of course such integrity was expected of a scholar like you. I have really been much impressed by your remarks as well, and I have developed a friendly feeling towards you. Now I would like to make a request. I hope you will accept.

Hafiz: Yes, please.

Well-Wisher: Tonight I would like to be a judge and the others to be witnesses, so that you may decide without any prejudice whether my claim is just. Some of the uninformed believers say that it is no use discussing a matter which happened over 1,300 years ago. They do not understand that matters relating to knowledge are debated in every age.

Fair discussions reveal the truth and the claim of inheritance can legally be made by an heir at any time. Since I am one of the heirs, I would like to put a question to you. Please give me a just reply.

Hafiz: Yes, I shall be very pleased to hear your statement.

Well-Wisher: If by divine command a father gives property to his son, and, after the death of the former, if the property is taken from the son who is in possession of the property, what would be the nature of the claim?

Hafiz: The usurper's action would be completely unjust. But whom are you referring to when you say the oppressor and the oppressed?

When the forts of Khaibar were conquered, the nobles, landlords, and prominent of Fadak came to the Holy Prophet. Fadak was an area in the valley of the Medina hills. It contained seven villages which extended as far as the sea coast.

Many were very fertile and there were oases there. There was a peace treaty with the people stating that half of the whole of Fadak was to be in their possession and the other half would be the property of the Holy Prophet.

This fact has been narrated by Yaqut Hamawi, the author of Majimu'l-Buldan in his Futuhu'l-Buldan, vol. VI, p. 343; by Ahmad Ibn Yahya Baladhuri Baghdadi (died 279 A.H.) in his Ta'rikh; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Sharh al-Nahju'l- Balagha, (printed Egypt), vol. IV, p. 78, quoting from Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz Jauhari; by Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari in his Ta'rikh al-Kabir, and by many others of your traditionists and historians.

When the Holy Prophet returned to Medina, Gabriel revealed the following:

"And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully." (7:26)

The Holy Prophet pondered the significance of this revelation. Gabriel appeared again and informed him that Allah had decreed: "Let Fadak be given to Fatima." The Holy Prophet called Fatima and said: "Allah has commanded me to bestow Fadak as a gift to you." So he immediately gave possession of Fadak to Fatima.

Hafiz: Please clarify what you say about the occasion on which this Holy verse was revealed. Is it written in the books of history and the commentaries of the Shi’as, or have you seen it in our reliable books also?

Well-Wisher: The chief of the commentators, Ahmad Tha'labi in his Kashfu'l-Bayan; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Tafsir, vol. IV, reporting from Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya; the famous commentator Ahmad Ibn Musa (died 352 A.H.) reporting from Abu Sa'id Khadiri and Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Haskani; Ibn Kathir; Imadu'd-din Isma'il; Ibn ‘Umar Damishqi; Faqih al-Shafi'i in his Ta'rikh, and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 39, reporting from Tafsir al-Tha'labi, Jam'u'l-Fawa'id and Uyunu'l-Akhbar - all narrate that when the verse "and give to the near of kin his due" was revealed, the Holy Prophet of Allah called Fatima and bestowed the great Fadak upon her as a gift.

Accordingly, so long as the Holy Prophet lived, Fadak remained in Fatima's possession. That exalted lady leased the land; its revenue was collected in three installments. Out of this amount she took enough money for food for her and her children and distributed the rest to the poor people of Bani Hashim. After the demise of the Holy Prophet, the officers of the ruling caliph snatched this property from Fatima.

I ask you, respected people to tell me in the name of justice how you would term this act.

Hafiz: This is the first time I have heard that the Holy Prophet gave Fadak, by command, to Fatima.

Well-Wisher: It is possible you might not have known about this. But, as I have told you, most of your prominent ulama’ have written about it in their reliable books. In order to establish the point clearly I refer you to Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya, Waqidi and Hakim (see their Tafsir and Ta'rikh); Jalalu'd-din Suyuti Durru'l-Mansur, Vol. IV, p. 177;

Mullah ‘Ali Muttaqi's Kanzu'l-Umma and the brief note which he had written on Ahmad Ibn Hanbal's Kitabu'l-Akhlaq of Musnad about the problem of Sila al-rahm; and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, Vol.IV. All of these ulama’ have narrated in different ways, apart from Abu Sa'id Khadiri's statement, that when the above verse was revealed the Holy Prophet gave Fadak to Fatima Zahra.

Hafiz: It is an admitted fact that the caliphs confiscated Fadak on the basis of the well known hadith narrated by Abu Bakr, who declared that he had himself heard the Holy Prophet say: "We prophets do not leave behind any legacy; whatever we leave as inheritance is charity" (i.e., the property of umma).

First, whoever contrived this hadith uttered it without thinking about the words he used. If he had been careful about it, he would never have said: "We prophets do not leave any inheritance," because he would have known that his lying would be exposed by the very wording of this concocted hadith. If he had used the words "I have not left behind any legacy," his attempted hadith would have been more plausible.

But when he used the plural "We prophets..."we are obliged to investigate the truth of the hadith. Now on the basis of your own statement we refer to the Holy Qur'an for guidance. We find that there are a number of verses which tell us that the prophets in fact did leave inheritances. This proves that this hadith is to be rejected outright.

In his Kitab al-Saqifa the great scholar and traditionist, Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz Jauhari, about whom Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha that he was one of the eminent ulama’ and traditionists of the Sunnis; Ibn Al-athir in his Nihaya; Mas'udi in Akhbaru'z-Zaman and in Ausat; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. IV, p. 78, quoting from Abu Bakr Ahmad Jauhari's book Saqifa and Fadak in different ways and from a number of sources, some of which refer to the fifth Imam Muhammad Baqir through Siddiqi Sughra Zainab al-Kubra and some of which refer to Abdullah Ibn Hasan on the authority of Siddiqi Kubra Fatima Zahra and on the authority of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha and also on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Imran Marzabani, he from Zaid Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Husain; he from his father, and he from his father Imam Husain; and he from his illustrious mother, Fatima Zahra; and many other ulama’ of your sect have narrated the speech of Fatima before a large gathering of the Muslims.

The opponents were stunned when they heard her reasoning and could not reply. Since they had no answer to make they caused a disturbance.

One of the arguments of Fatima rejecting the hadith was that, if the hadith were true, then why there were so many verses about the inheritances of the prophets. She said:

"At one place the Holy Qur'an says, 'And Solomon was David's heir.'"(27:16)

About the prophet Zakariyya the Holy Qur'an says:

"Therefore grant me from thyself an heir, who shall inherit of me and inherit (also), of the house ofJacob." (19, 5-6)

About Zakariyya's invocation the Holy Qur'an says:

"And Zakariyya, when he cried to his Lord: 'O my Lord, leave me not childless, though Thou art thebest of inheritors.' So we responded to him and gave him Yahya." (21: 89, 90)

After that she said: "O Son of Abu Qahafa! Is it there in the Book of Allah that you are an heir of your father and I am deprived of my father's legacy? You have committed a great slander. Have you people deliberately abandoned the Book of Allah (the Holy Qur'an) and ignored it altogether? Am I not the descendant of the Holy Prophet? Why are you depriving me of my right? Why are all these verses of inheritance, which are intended for all people in general and for the Prophets in particular included in the Holy Qur'an?

Is it not a fact that the verses of the Holy Qur'an shall remain unchanged until the Day of Judgment? Does not the Holy Qur'an say:

'And those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah...' (8:75)"

and:

'Allah enjoins you about your issue! The male shall have the equal of the shares of two females.' (4:12)

and:

'Bequest is prescribed for you when one of you approaches death, if he leaves wealth, that he bequeaths unto parents and near relations in kindness. (2:180)

(This is) a duty for all those who ward off (evil).' Then why have I, in particular, been deprived of my father's legacy? Has Allah revealed some special verses to you, which exclude my father (from his right). Do you know the outward and inner meanings of the Holy Qur'an better than my father, Muhammad, and my cousin, ‘Ali?"

When they were silenced by these arguments and true facts, they had no answer. They resorted to deception and abusive language.

She cried: "Today you have broken my heart. On the Day of Judgment I will file a suit against you in the Divine Court of Justice and Allah Almighty will decide the case justly. Allah is the best judge. Muhammad is the master and lord; our and your promised time is the Day of Resurrection.

That day the transgressor will be losers, and your repentance will do you no good. For everything there is an appointed time and you will know before long who will be afflicted with scornful chastisement."

Hafiz: Who could dare to abuse part of the body of the Holy Prophet, Fatima Zahra? I do not believe this. Deception may be possible, but using abusive language is not possible. Please do not say such things.

Well-Wisher: No one had the courage to say such things except your Caliph, Abu Bakr. Unable to rebut the cogent reasoning of the oppressed lady, he immediately mounted the pulpit and insulted Fatima and her husband and cousin, the loved one of Allah and of His Prophet, Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali.

Hafiz: I think these slanderous reports have been spread by fanatics.

Well-Wisher: You are mistaken. These reports have not been spread by Shi’as fanatics. Prominent Sunni ulama’ have spread them. However intolerant our common people might be, they never fabricate hadith.

If you study your authentic books, you will admit that your great ulama’ have acknowledged these facts. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.IV, p. 80, printed in Egypt, reporting from Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz Jauhari, has written in detail about Abu Bakr's mounting the pulpit after the remonstrances of ‘Ali and Fatima.

Many scholars have recorded that when Fatima finished pleading her case, ‘Ali began his remonstrance in the public gathering of Muslims in the mosque of Medina, turning towards Abu Bakr, he said: "Why did you deprive Fatima of her father's legacy, though she was its owner and possessed it during the lifetime of her father?"

Abu Bakr replied: "Fadak is the booty of the Muslims. If Fatima produces complete evidence that it is her own property, I will certainly give it to her; otherwise, I will deprive her of it."

The Holy Imam said, "Is it not a fact that when you pronounce a judgment about Muslims, in general, you pass quite a contradictory judgment concerning us?"

"Hasn't the Holy Prophet said that the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff and that of defense on the defendant? You have rejected the judgment of the Holy Prophet and, contrary to religious law, you demand witnesses from Fatima who has been in possession of the property since the time of the Holy Prophet. Moreover is the word of Fatima, who is one of the Ashab al-Kisa (people of the mantle) and who is included in the verse of purity, not true?"

"If two persons were to give evidence that Fatima had committed some wrong, tell me how would you treat her?" Abu Bakr said, "I would inflict punishment on her as I would any other woman."

The Holy Imam said, "If you did this, you would be an infidel before Allah, because you would have rejected Allah's evidence about Fatima's purity. Allah says 'Verily, Verily, Allah intends but to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness, O you the People of the House, and purify you (with) a thorough purification.' Is this verse not revealed in our praise?"

Abu Bakr said: "Why not?"

The Imam said: "Is it possible that Fatima, whose purity Allah has verified, would lay a false claim to a petty property? You reject the evidence of the purified one and accept the evidence of the Arab who urinates on the heel of his own foot!"

After saying this Imam returned to his home angry. His protest excited the people. Everyone said: "Truth is with ‘Ali and Fatima. By Allah, ‘Ali speaks the truth. Why is the Holy Prophet's daughter treated so outrageously?"

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid narrates that the people were deeply impressed by the protests of ‘Ali and Fatima and began to cause a disturbance. Abu Bakr, who saw that the two Holy persons had already left the mosque went to the pulpit and said:

"O people! Why are you so disturbed? Why do you listen to everybody? Since I have rejected their evidence, they are talking nonsense. The fact is that he is a fox who is betrayed by his own tail. He creates all sorts of disturbances. He minimizes the importance of disturbances and incites the people to create agitation and uproar. He seeks help from the weak. He seeks assistance from women. He is like Ummu't-Tihal with whom people of her own house were fond of fornicating."

Aren't these remarks outrageously abusive? Do they accord with praise, respect, love and sympathy, which the Holy Prophet had said were due his family? How long will you remain absorbed in this misguided faith and fanaticism? For how long will you oppose the Shi’as and call them Rafizis and infidels because they criticize the words and actions of people which are recorded in your own books?

Consider the matter justly. Was the insolence of the aged companion of the Prophet justified? The wicked and abusive language of Mu'awiya, Marwan, and Khalid was not as distressing as that which comes from the mouth of the man who is called the "companion of the cave." Respected men! We were not present at that time. We hear the names of ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Mu'awiya, Marwan, Khalid, Abu Huraira, etc.

We have neither friendship nor enmity with any of them. We see two things: first, those whom Allah and His Prophet loved and for whom respect and loyalty was commanded. Second, we examine their deeds and utterances. Then we decide with a fair mind. We resist letting our preference for someone distort our judgment.

We aren't the only ones who are shocked at such behavior. Even your own fair ulama’ are amazed to learn it. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in his Sharh al-Nahju'l- Balagha, Vol.IV, p. 80, that the utterances of the Caliph filled him with astonishment. He asked his teacher Abu Yahya Naqib Ja'far Ibn Yahya Ibn Abi Zaidu'l-Basari to whom the caliph's words referred. He said that the statements were not indirect. The reference was explicit.

Ibn Hadid said: "If they had been explicit, I would not have put the question." Upon this he laughed and said: "These things were said against ‘Ali." Ibn Hadid repeated the words in astonishment: "Were all those words said against ‘Ali?" His teacher said: "Yes, O son! This is what rulership means."

Resorting to abusive language is the tactic of one who has no convincing reply. All this was done to ‘Ali about whom, as reported by all your leading ulama’ in their reliable books, the Holy Prophet said: "‘Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali."

In reference to both ‘Ali and Fatima, the Holy Prophet said that their trouble was his own trouble. The Holy Prophet said: "He who troubles these two troubles me, and the one who troubles me troubles Allah." It is also written in all your authentic books that the Holy Prophet said, "He who reviles ‘Ali reviles me, who reviles me reviles Allah."

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his Kifayatu't-Talib, ch. 10, narrates a detailed hadith on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who told a section of the Syrians, who were cursing ‘Ali that he had heard the Holy Prophet saying about ‘Ali: "He who abuses you abuses me, and he who abuses me abuses Allah, and he who abuses Allah will be thrown straight into Hell."

After this hadith he quotes many other hadith from authentic sources all of which prove that those who abuse ‘Ali are infidels. Chapter 10 of his book is entitled: "Concerning the Infidelity of One who Abuses ‘Ali"

Also Hakim in his Mustadrak, vol. III, p. 121, has quoted this same hadith. So according to all these hadith, those who curse ‘Ali, curse Allah and his Prophet. All of them (like Mu'awiya, the Bani Umayya, the Nasibi's, and the Kharijis) are themselves cursed. Now this much is sufficient. The Day of Judgement will surely come. Since our oppressed ancestor assumed silence and left the decision to that Day, we shall also remain silent.

There is a second point which disproves the supposed hadith: "We leave no inheritance..." The Holy Prophet said: "I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate; and I am the house of wisdom and ‘Ali is its door." Both sects accepted this. Certainly, one who was the gate of the Holy Prophet's knowledge understood all hadith and instructions of the Holy Prophet, particularly those concerned with the problems of inheritance.

On them depends the welfare of the whole nation. The Holy Prophet also said: "One who wishes to acquire knowledge should come to ‘Ali's door." If his knowledge had been incomplete, the Holy Prophet would not have said that ‘Ali was the best judge in the whole community. He said: "‘Ali is the best of all among you in interpreting the laws." This hadith is recorded in all your authentic books.

Would the Holy Prophet proclaim the superiority of a man's mastery of the laws, if that man did not understand the problems of inheritance and the rights of the people? Part of the purpose of the Holy Prophet was to secure social reform for the people in this world and peace and comfort for them in the hereafter. How could he make ‘Ali the Commander of the Faithful and yet not convey to him a tradition such as this which affects the entire social order?

Sheikh: Neither of these two things is proved according to us. The hadith of Medina is not accepted by our distinguished ulama’ and the problem of vicegerency and succession has also been rejected by the reputable ulama’.

Bukhari and Muslim in their collections of hadith and others of our prominent ulama’, report on the authority of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha that the head of the Holy Prophet at the time of his death rested against her chest until he passed away. She stated that he did not make a Will. Had he made a Will, Ummu'l-Mu'minin would have narrated it, and the question of the Will would have been settled.

Regarding the problem of vicegerency there are many authoritative statements confirming that the Holy Prophet did make his Will. No knowledgeable person denies this fact.

Nawab: The caliph of the prophet is also his vicegerent, the one who conducted his domestic affairs. For example they paid allowances to the wives of the Prophet. Why do you say that ‘Ali was appointed vicegerent?

Well-Wisher: You are right. It is obvious that the Holy Prophet's caliph was also his vicegerent. During previous nights I have submitted my arguments and authoritative statements concerning the caliphate. That the Holy Prophet appointed ‘Ali his caliph and vicegerent is quite right. While others were busy with their own conveniences and political conspiracies, the vicegerent of the Holy Prophet performed the funeral rites of the Holy Prophet.

Afterwards he was occupied in returning the trust money and other valuables and caring for other matters with which the Holy Prophet had entrusted him. This is too clear to require any proof. Both our ulama’ agree regarding this fact.

(1) Creating Brotherly Relationship - Imam Tha'labi in his Manaqib and Tafsir, Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i in his Manaqib and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba (Mawadda VI) narrate from the second caliph, ‘Umar ibn Khattab, who, when the Holy Prophet established fraternal and brotherly ties between the companions, said:

'This ‘Ali is my brother in this world and in the hereafter. Among my descendants he is my caliph; he is my successor (vicegerent) in my community. He is the heir to my knowledge; he is the payer of my debt. What belongs to him belongs to me; what belongs to me belongs to him; his benefit is my benefit and his loss is my loss. He who is a friend of his is really a friend of mine and he who is an enemy of his is really an enemy of mine."

(2) Enquiry by Salman - Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi, ch. 15 of his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda has narrated twenty hadith in support of the vicegerency of ‘Ali from Imam Tha'labi, Hamwaini, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Maghazili, Khawarizmi and Dailami. I submit some of them for your guidance. He reports from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal's Musnad (and Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkirat al-Khawasu'l-Umma, p. 26, and Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib have also narrated these hadith) that Anas Ibn Malik said:

"I asked Salman to ask the Holy Prophet who was his Wasi (vicegerent). Salman asked the Holy Prophet 'O Prophet of Allah! Who is your vicegerent?' The Holy Prophet said, 'O Salman! Who is Salman's successor?' He said 'Yusha Ibn Nun.' Then the Holy Prophet said, 'My successor and my heir, who will pay my debt and will fulfill my promises, is ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.'"

(3) Every prophet had a successor. ‘Ali is my successor. It is reported from Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad, who quotes from Buraida that the Holy Prophet said: "Every prophet had a successor and heir, and verily, my successor and heir is ‘Ali." Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, ch. 62, p. 131 quotes the same hadith which has also been narrated by Muhadith of Syria in his Ta'rikh.

(4) ‘Ali is the seal of vicegerents. Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini narrates from Abu dharr Ghifari, who said, "The Holy Prophet said, I am the seal of the prophets and you, O ‘Ali, are the seal of the vicegerents until the day of judgement."

(5) ‘Ali is my vicegerent from my progeny. It is reported from Khatib Khawarizmi, who reports from Ummu'l-Mu'minin Umm Salma, who said: "The Holy Prophet said, 'Allah has selected a successor for every prophet and after me my vicegerent from my progeny and my community is ‘Ali.'"

(6) ‘Ali asserts his position in a sermon. It is reported from Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i, who narrates from Asbagh Ibn Nabuta, one of the chief companions of Amiru'l-Mu'minin, and Muslim and Bukhari also have quoted from him that his master Amiru'l-Mu'minin said in one of his sermons: "O people! I am imam (guide) of the whole creation. I am the successor (vicegerent) of the choicest of creatures; I am the father of the completely pure and guiding progeny; I am brother of the Holy Prophet, his successor, his trusted friend, and comrade.

I am the master of the believers; I am the leader of those who have bright faces, bright hands and bright feet; I am the chief of all the successors. To fight against me is to fight against Allah; to make peace with me is to make peace with Allah. Obedience to me is obedience to Allah; friendship with me is friendship with Allah; my followers are friends of Allah; and my helpers are helpers of Allah."

(7) Allah made me prophet and ‘Ali my vicegerent. Also Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib quotes from Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud that the Prophet of Allah said: "The message of prophethood ended with me and ‘Ali; neither of us has ever prostrated before an idol; so Allah made me prophet and ‘Ali the vicegerent."

(8) ‘Ali's vicegerency is part of the formula of allegiance to Holy Prophet. Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i reports in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda IV, from Atba Ibn Amir Jahni, who said, "We offered bayya (allegiance) to the Holy Prophet, acknowledging the fact that there is no god but Allah. He is one and has no partner and verily Muhammad is His prophet and ‘Ali is His vicegerent. So if we omit any of these three things, we shall become unbelievers."

(9) I call people to truth and ‘Ali illuminates it. In the same Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, it is also recorded that the Holy Prophet said: "Verily Allah has appointed a vicegerent for every prophet: Seth, vicegerent of Adam; Joshua, vicegerent of Moses; Simon Peter vicegerent of Christ; and ‘Ali, my vicegerent; and my vicegerent is superior to all vicegerents. I call the people to truth and ‘Ali illuminates it."

The author of Yanabi quotes from Manaqib of Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad Khawarizmi, who narrates from Abu Ayyub Ansari, who said that when the Prophet of Allah was lying ill, Fatima came and began to weep. Then the Holy Prophet said: "O Fatima, you are particularly blessed by Allah who has given you a husband whose Islam is foremost, whose knowledge is superior to any one else's, and whose patience exceeds all others' patience.

In fact Allah Almighty granted special favors to the people of this world. From among them He selected and appointed me His Prophet and Messenger. Then He granted another special blessing and from among the people He selected your husband. And He revealed to me that I should marry you to him and should make him my vicegerent."

After recording this hadith in his Manaqib, Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i records these additional words of the Prophet: "O Fatima! We Ahlul Bayt have been endowed with seven qualities, which none of the progenitors of mankind have had, and none among their progeny will have. The most exalted of the prophets belongs to us, and he is your father.

My vicegerent is superior to all other vicegerents, and he is your husband. Our martyr excels all other martyrs and he is your uncle, Hamza. From among us (Ahlul Bayt) there is a man who has two wings with which he flies, whenever he likes, to Paradise, and he is your cousin, Ja'far.

From us there are two grandsons who are the chiefs of the youths of Paradise, and they are your sons. And I tell you, by Allah who controls my life, that the Mahdi of this umma, behind whom Jesus, son of Mary, will offer prayers, will be a descendant of yours."

Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Hamwaini, after narrating this hadith, has quoted these additional sentences:

After naming the Mahdi, the Prophet said: "He will fill this world with justice when it will have been full of cruelty and tyranny. O Fatima! Do not be sad and do not weep. Because of my love and respect for you, Allah Almighty is more kind to you than I. He has bestowed on you a husband of the highest spiritual attainment, most exalted in family rank, most gracious to the people, most equitable in dealing with men's affairs, and most accurate in his decisions."

I think this much is sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of Nawab Sahib and to remove the misunderstanding of Sheikh Sahib.

As for the claim that at the time of the Prophet's death, his head was on the chest of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha, it is not true. Your own ulama’ point out that at the time of the Holy Prophet's death his head rested on the chest of Amiru'l-Mu'minin.

With minor differences in wording, all of these works narrate from Ummu'l-Mu'minin Umm Salma and Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari that at the time of his death, the Holy Prophet called ‘Ali and rested his head on ‘Ali's chest until he (the Prophet) died.

In addition to these reports, there is Amiru'l-Mu'minin's own statement, which is recorded in his Nahju'l-Balagha. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, Vol. II, p. 561 states that the Holy Imam clearly said: "Verily, the soul of the Holy Prophet departed from this world while his head rested on my chest; he breathed his last while he was in my hands.

So I rubbed my hands on my face." Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Vol. II, p. 562, of his book comments on this statement of ‘Ali, that when the Holy Prophet's head rested on ‘Ali's chest, some drops of the Prophet's blood flowed down, which ‘Ali rubbed on his own face.

And on page 590 of the same book, in the course of his writing about the burial of Fatima, he says that ‘Ali, addressing the Holy Prophet, said, "Verily, I laid you to rest in the grave; your soul had departed between my neck and my chest."

All these authentic records and weighty arguments clearly prove that A’ysha's version cannot be accepted. It is a known fact that A’ysha opposed Amiru'l-Mu'minin from the very beginning. Allah willing, I will tell about this also when the occasion requires it.

These hadith clearly indicate that Allah appointed the prophets and the vicegerents. He also appointed ‘Ali as the Holy Prophet's vicegerent. Moreover, "successor" here refers to the caliphate, and not merely a family successor. Therefore the vicegerent was granted full authority over individuals and society in all their affairs, the same authority as the Prophet possessed.

All your notable ulama’ have acknowledged this guardianship of the umma, which was assigned to ‘Ali. No one has denied it except the few fanatical and hostile individuals, who have refused to accept the high merits of the Holy Imam.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, Vol. I (printed in Egypt): "According to us there is no doubt that ‘Ali was the wasi (vicegerent) of the Holy Prophet, and only that man opposes this fact who, in our opinion, has a grudge or enmity against him."

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid quotes a number of couplets which confirm the vicegerency of Amiru'l-Mu'minin. Among them are two couplets of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, who said: "Apart from your being one of the Ahlul Bayt, you are also his wasi (vicegerent) and when somebody challenges you on the battlefield, you are the best warrior."

He quotes the couplets of Khazima Ibn Thabit: "Apart from the fact that you are included in the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet you are also his immediate successor (vicegerent), and you are a witness to whatever came to him." He also quotes the couplet of the companion, Abu'l-Hakim Tihan, who said: "Verily, it is the immediate successor (vicegerent) of the Holy Prophet who is our imam and our master. The curtain has been raised and the secrets have been revealed."

This is perhaps sufficient. If you want to see other couplets on this point you may study the same book. As Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says, if he had not feared extending the work unduly, he would have filled many more pages with such couplets confirming the vicegerency of ‘Ali.

It follows however, that Vicegerency and Prophethood are inter-dependent. This is a stage after the rank of Prophethood and this is what is meant by Divine Sovereignty.

Sheikh: If these reports are correct, why do we not find any such record of the Will and Testament of the Holy Prophet, as we have those left by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar at the time of their death?

Well-Wisher: You could easily learn about these matters from the authentic Shi’as works, which have recorded them with unanimity of opinion from the Ahlul Bayt, but since we agreed on the first night not to have recourse to one-sided traditions, I am obliged to refer to some of the traditions which are found in your own authentic books such as those of Tabaqa of Ibn Sa'd, Vol. II, p. 61, 63; Kanzu'l-Ummal of ‘Ali Muttaqi, Vol. IV, p.54, and Volume VI, pp. 155, 393, 403; Musnad of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. IV, p 164; and Mustadrak of Hakim, Vol. III, pp 59, 111.

Besides these, your eminent scholars, like Baihaqi in his Sunan and Dala'il, Ibn Abdu'l-Barr in his Isti'ab, Tabrani in his Kabir and Ibn Mardawiyya in his Ta'rikh as well as others have recorded in different words the directions and instructions of the Holy Prophet, who said: "O ‘Ali! You are my brother and my minister; you will pay off my debt. You will fulfill my promises and will discharge my responsibilities. You will wash my dead body, pay my debt, and deposit me in the grave." Apart from these explicit reports, there are a large number of other firmans or ordinances, which were pronounced by the Prophet in this regard.

"Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relations, according to usage, a duty (incumbent) upon those who guard (against evil)." (1:180)

Therefore it was necessary for the Prophet to make his will and appoint his immediate successor. When he saw his death approaching why did he not make his will as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did?

Well-Wisher: First, by the words "when death approaches one of you" do you mean the last moments of life? At that time there is hardly anyone who is in his right mind and is able to perform his duties consciously. Certainly this passage refers to the time when the signs and symptoms of old age, infirmity and disease are appearing.

Second, this statement of yours has again wounded my feelings and reminded me of a tragedy which cannot be forgotten, my Holy grandfather, the Prophet of Allah, stressed the importance of Muslims making a will.

He said: "He who dies without making a will dies the death of ignorance, lest there should be discord among the heirs." During the 23 years of his public life he repeatedly announced who was his 'wasi,' the one whom Allah had ordained as vicegerent.

When he himself was on his death bed, he desired to repeat what he had so often declared so that the Community might not be misled and fall into warring factions. It is a pity that the political jugglers opposed him and prevented him from performing his religious duty. The result was that you, too, have an occasion to ask why the Prophet did not make a will.

Also in several other verses obedience to the Holy Prophet has been made obligatory. For instance, Allah says: "Obey Allah and obey the Prophet."

Obviously, refusing to obey the Prophet of Allah is infidelity. Hence the Companions and the followers of the Prophet could not prevent him declaring his Will. Possibly it is a forged report, which has been circulated by the unbelievers to prove the recklessness of the umma.

Well-Wisher: Please don't pretend to be ignorant. This is not a forged report. It is a recognized report, which all Islamic sects accept. Even Bukhari and Muslim, who have been strictly cautious about any such report, which might threaten their own point of view, have narrated this event in their books of hadith.

They write that the Holy Prophet, while on his death bed, asked for paper and ink so that he might have certain instructions recorded for them which would preserve them from going astray after he died. Some of those present, incited by a politician, caused such disturbance that the Holy Prophet became extremely annoyed and ordered them to go away.

Sheikh: I cannot for a moment believe this. Who could be so bold as to oppose the Prophet of Allah? Even if an ordinary man wishes to write his will, no one can prevent him. How could anybody prevent the Holy Prophet from making his will? To disobey him is infidelity.

Since the will of the great ones of a community is a source of guidance, no one would prevent it from being executed. Caliphs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar made their wills, and no one prevented them from doing so. I repeat, I do not accept such a report.

Well-Wisher: You may believe it or not. In fact every Muslim is surprised to hear it. Every one, of whatever race or community he may be, is dumbfounded to hear of such an event.

It is not a matter of grief for you and us alone. The companions of the Holy Prophet also lamented this tragic event. Bukhari, Muslim, and other prominent ulama’ of your sect have reported that Abdullah Ibn Abbas often shed tears and said: "Alas! That Thursday! Alas! How it was on that Thursday!" Then he wept so much that the ground became wet with his tears. People asked him what had happened on Thursday that caused him to weep.

He replied that when the Holy Prophet lay on his death bed he asked for paper and ink so that he might write a will, which would prevent them from going astray after him, some of those present prevented him from doing so and even said that the Holy Prophet was talking nonsense (may Allah forgive me!). That Thursday cannot be forgotten. They did not allow the Holy Prophet to write his will and they injured him with their words.

Well-Wisher: It was the second caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, who prevented the Holy Prophet from making his will.

Sheikh: I am thankful that you have put me at ease. These statements trouble me. I was inclined to say that these reports have been forged by the Shi’as, but I kept quiet out of respect for you. Now I tell you what is in my heart. I advise you not to spread such concocted stories.

Well-Wisher: I advise you not to accept or reject facts without proper consideration. You have made undue haste in this matter and have charged the innocent Shi’as with forgery. Your own books are full of reports which support our point of view.

They have written that the Holy Prophet on returning from his last pilgrimage fell ill. When a group of the companions came to see him, he said: "Bring me ink, and paper, so that I may write for you a will which will not let you go astray after me."

Imam Ghazali has written in his Sirru'l-Alamin, Maqala IV, from which Sibt Ibn Jauzi also quotes in his Tadhkirat, p. 36, and many others of your eminent ulama’ have reported that the Holy Prophet asked the people to bring him ink and paper and according to some reports he said:

"Bring me ink and paper so that I may remove from your minds all doubts about the caliphate after me; that is so that I may tell you who deserves the caliphate after me." At this point they write, ‘Umar said, "Leave this man for he is really talking nonsense (may Allah forgive me!); the Book of Allah is sufficient for us."

Some of the companions agreed with ‘Umar, and some agreed with the Holy Prophet. There was so much chaos and confusion that the Holy Prophet said: "Get away from me; it is not proper to become angry near me."

This was the first disturbance among the Muslims in the presence of the Holy Prophet in all of his 23 years of his strenuous service. The cause of this trouble was Caliph ‘Umar, who sowed the seeds of discord among the Muslims. Today you and I, two brothers in Islam, are consequently facing each other in opposition.

Sheikh: It was not expected of a man like you to be so bold as to utter slander about such an eminent person as Caliph ‘Umar.

Well-Wisher: Tell us whether I showed any boldness in narrating historical facts from your own book. Do you think that Caliph ‘Umar was bold when he prevented the Prophet from writing his will? Was he bold when he abused the Prophet to his face? A poet has rightly said: "You see the mote in my eyes, but you do not see the beam in your own." Does Allah Almighty not say: "Muhammad is not father of any of your men, but the Prophet of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets?"

The name of the Holy Prophet should always be pronounced with due respect and deference. He should be called "the Prophet of Allah or the Seal of the Prophets." But ‘Umar showed no regard for the divine ordinance, instead referring to the Holy Prophet as "this man." Now please say in Allah's name whether insolence was committed by me or by the Caliph?

Well-Wisher: All commentators and your great ulama’ give the meaning of Hajar as "nonsense." For instance Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul, Ibn Hajar in his Sharh-i-Sahih Bukhari, and the authors of other compilations of hadith give the same meaning. Respected Sir! If somebody says "this man is uttering nonsense" about the Holy Prophet of Allah has he not violated manners and the injunction of the Holy Qur'an?

The Holy Prophet had not lost his prophethood or his infallibility. If someone describes his words as "nonsense," does it not mean that such a person was a disbeliever in Allah and the Holy Prophet?

Sheikh: Is it proper in light of his rank as a caliph to find fault with him saying that he did not believe in Allah and the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: When you hear that the Prophet is accused of uttering nonsense you do not object. But when a man who occupied the caliphate is cited by many of your own ulama’ as having insulted the Prophet, you immediately fault the Shi’as rather than place the fault where it rightly belongs.

Your own ulama’ such as Qazi Ayaz; Shafi'i in his Kitab al-Shifa; Kirmani in his Sharh al-Sahih Bukhari, and Nuwi in his Sharh al-Sahih Muslim have written that the man who used these words clearly had no belief in the Prophet of Allah. So if anybody opposes the Holy Prophet, particularly with abusive words or saying that he was talking nonsense, we see clearly that he had no belief in the Messenger of Allah.

You asked me why I charged him with creating discord among the people. Your own ulama’ have admitted this fact. The great scholar Husain Meibudi says in his Sharh al-Diwan that the first disturbance in Islam happened in the presence of the Holy Prophet himself, when he was on his deathbed. The trouble began when ‘Umar prevented the Prophet from writing his will.

Shahrastani says in his book Milal wa Nihal, Muqaddama IV, that the first antagonism between groups of Muslims began when ‘Umar refused to allow ink and paper to be brought to the Prophet on his deathbed. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid confirms this fact in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, Vol. II, p. 563.

Sheikh: If Caliph ‘Umar said these words, I do not find it discourteous. When a man is seriously ill he may become delirious. If he speaks incoherently, we might refer to his speech as nonsense. In this matter there is no difference between the Holy Prophet and other men.

Well-Wisher: You are well aware that all prophets are infallible and that this characteristic remains until death. The Prophet Muhammad was certainly infallible on this occasion when he said he wanted to prevent his people from going astray after his death.

If you attend to the Holy verses of the Qur'an which say: "And he speaks not of (his own) inclination; It (the wording) is naught but a revelation revealed (to him)," "And you should follow what the Prophet enjoins upon you," "And obey Allah and obey the Prophet," you will yourself clearly understand that preventing the ink and paper from being brought to the Holy Prophet was really opposition to Allah. That it is an admitted fact that the word "nonsense" was open abuse, and the Caliph's pointing him out as "this man" was still more insulting.

Now I would like you to tell me how you would feel if somebody in this assembly, pointing at you, were to say "this man is uttering nonsense." You and I are not faultless and we can talk nonsense. Would you call it good manners or insulting? If such talk is insulting in this case, you will have to admit that any such impudence against the Holy Prophet was highly insulting.

And nobody can deny the fact that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to keep aloof from a man whose behavior towards the Holy Prophet was so offensive and insolent, when Allah has clearly called him in the Holy Qur'an His Prophet and Seal of the Prophets. If you would abandon your prejudice, what would your common sense say about a man who instead of looking to the Holy Prophet as the Prophet of Allah and Seal of the Prophets said, "This man is uttering nonsense?"

Sheikh: Suppose we admit that he was at fault. But since he was the Caliph of the Prophet and he had exercised his discretion for the security of religion he was free from all blame.

Well-Wisher: First, your remark that since he was the Caliph of the Prophet and he exercised his discretion is quite irrelevant, because on the day on which he said those words, he was not the Caliph. Perhaps he had not even dreamed of it.

Second, your remark that he exercised his discretion is also astonishing. Have you not considered that in face of an explicit injunction, discretion has no place? In fact it is a fault for which one cannot be exonerated.

Third, you said that he did so for the security of the religion. It is really astonishing that ulama’ like you should lose all sense of justice.

Respected Sir! Who was responsible for the preservation of religion - the Prophet of Allah or ‘Umar Ibn Khattab? Does your common sense accept the point that the Holy Prophet (after stating the condition "You will not go astray after this writing of the will") might not know that the writing of the will was against the religion, or that ‘Umar Ibn Khattab was better aware of it and prevented the Holy Prophet from writing his will? How incredible!

You know very well that any digression from the essentials of religion is a great sin, and it cannot be condoned.

Sheikh: There is no doubt that Caliph ‘Umar had assessed the conditions and circumstances prevailing in the religion and had come to the conclusion that if the Holy Prophet wrote anything, great differences and disturbances would be caused. So it was for the support and benefit of the Holy Prophet himself that he prevented ink and paper from being brought to him.

Well-Wisher: The purpose of your argument seems to be that the Holy Prophet, who was infallible, while he instructed his community, was not sufficiently aware of the potential for conflict after his death, and that ‘Umar guided him in this case. But the Qur'an tells us:

"And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying."(33:36) Caliph ‘Umar disobeyed the Holy Prophet's order, preventing him from writing his will. Moreover, he was insolent to say that the Prophet was uttering nonsense. This outrage so injured the Holy Prophet's feelings that he asked the people to get away from him.

Sheikh: But the good intention of the Caliph is apparent from his last words "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us" (i.e., we do not stand in need of the writing of the Prophet of Allah)

Well-Wisher: Actually, these words are the best proof of his lack of belief and his ignorance of the Holy Qur'an. If he had known the reality of the Holy Qur'an, he would have known that the Qur'an alone is not sufficient for all matters. It has laid down essential tenets, but detailed explanations are left to its interpreters and commentators. The Qur'an contains orders which are current (nasikh), abrogated (mansukh), general ('am), particular (khass), limited (muqayyad), comparative (mutashabih), absolute (mutlaq), synoptic (mujmal), or clear (mu'awwil).

How is it possible for an ordinary man to derive full advantage from this Qur'an without the help of divine blessings and interpretations given by its exponents? If the Qur'an alone were sufficient for the Community, why was this verse revealed: "You should do whatever the Prophet of Allah enjoins upon you to do; and you should abstain from whatever he prohibits you from." Allah also says in the Holy Qur'an:

"And if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it." (4:83)

It follows from this that the Holy Qur'an alone would not serve its purpose without the commentaries of its exponents, that is, Muhammad and his pure descendants. Here I may refer again to the accepted hadith (which I have quoted with some of its sources on previous nights) which the Holy Prophet repeated even at the time of his demise saying: "I leave behind me Two Great Things: The Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt.

If you adhere to these two, never, never shall you go astray after me; for verily these two will never be separated from one another until they meet me at the spring of Kauthar."

The Holy Prophet, who was inspired by Allah, did not consider the Qur'an in isolation sufficient for our salvation. He said that we should be attached to the Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt, as they would not be separated from each other till the Day of Judgment, and that these were sources of guidance for the people. But ‘Umar said that the Qur'an alone is sufficient for us. This shows that he not only discarded the Holy Progeny but also rejected the command of the Holy Prophet.

Who should we obey in this case? No sensible man would say that we should leave aside the order of the Holy Prophet and follow ‘Umar. Then why did you accept ‘Umar's opinion, ignoring the order of the Holy Prophet? If the Book of Allah were sufficient, why were we ordered to ask the people of dhikr, as the Holy Qur'an says:

"So ask the followers of the Reminder if you do not know." (16:43)

It is evident that 'dhikr' means the Holy Prophet or the Holy Qur'an and 'the people of dhikr' means the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet.

I have already clarified in previous nights with valid arguments and authentic sources that your prominent ulama’, like Suyuti and others, have recorded that the "people of dhikr" means Ahlul Bayt.

Qutbu'd-din Shirazi, who is one of your eminent scholars, says in his book Kashfu'l-Ghuyub: "It is an admitted fact that we cannot make progress on the way without a guide. We wonder at Caliph ‘Umar's claim that, since we have the Qur'an in our midst, we do not stand in need of any guide. It is just like a man saying that, since we have books of medicine, we do not require a physician. Obviously it is a false assertion because a man who cannot solve his problems by reading the books of medicine must consult a physician.

The same thing holds true in the case of the Holy Qur'an. Everyone cannot derive advantage from it through his ability. He must necessarily turn to those who have knowledge of the Holy Qur'an."

The Holy Qur'an says:

"And if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those amongthem who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it." (4:83)

In fact the real book is the heart of one who possesses knowledge, as the Holy Qur'an says:

"Nay these are clear communications in the breasts of those who are granted knowledge." (29:49)

Accordingly, ‘Ali said: "I am the speaking Book of Allah, and this Qur'an is the mute book."

So according to the people of knowledge ‘Umar was mistaken. It was a great injustice to the Holy Prophet of Allah that he was prevented from writing his will.

With regard to your repeated claim that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were not prevented from writing their wills, I admit it is true. It is surprising, as all your historians and traditionists have recorded in their authentic books that Caliph Abu Bakr, at the time of his death, asked Uthman Ibn Affan to write down what he (Abu Bakr) was saying. It was his will. He wrote down whatever Abu Bakr dictated to him. ‘Umar and others were also present on this occasion. No one objected. ‘Umar did not say: "The Book of Allah is sufficient for us; we do not need Abu Bakr's will." But he did not allow the Holy Prophet of Allah to write his will.

This shows that all this insulting behavior and preventing the Holy Prophet from writing his will was nothing but political conspiracy.

Ibn Abbas was perfectly justified in weeping. The entire Muslim world should shed tears of blood. If the Prophet had been given the chance to write his will, the question of the caliphate would have been clearly resolved. The previous pronouncements of the Holy Prophet would have been confirmed. But the politicians revolted against him and stood in his way.

Sheikh: Why do you claim that the Holy Prophet wanted to say something about the caliphate?

Well-Wisher: Before the Prophet died, all essential religious laws were revealed. The verse of the "Perfection of Religion" made this clear. Of course the matter of the caliphate was such that he wanted to make certain that there would be no confusion regarding it.

I have already told you that Imam Ghazali in his Sirru'l-Alamin (Maqala IV) has recorded that the Holy Prophet said: "Bring me ink and paper so that I may remove from your minds any doubts about the caliphate and that I may repeat to you who deserves that rank.

"His words "so that you may not go astray after me" prove that the aim of his will was the guidance of the community. In the matter of guidance, no emphasis was required except in regard to the caliphate and the imamate.

Apart from this we do not stress the point that the Holy Prophet wanted to say something about the caliphate or imamate. Certainly he wanted to write something concerning the guidance of the people so that they might not go astray after him. Then why was he not allowed to make his will? Even supposing that preventing him from doing so was proper, was it also necessary to insult and abuse him?

These things make it quite clear that ‘Ali was the immediate successor of the Prophet of Allah. Although the latter repeatedly proclaimed this fact in the past, he wanted at this last stage to record it in his will so that the responsibilities of the Community might be made secure. But the politicians knew what he wanted to do, so they prevented him from doing so and insulted him.

The Holy Prophet had emphasized in many hadith that Allah Almighty appointed vicegerents for the Holy prophets: Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and others, and that He appointed for him his vicegerent, ‘Ali.

He also said, "‘Ali is my immediate successor (vicegerent) after me in my Ahlul Bayt and my community."

Sheikh: If these reports are taken to be true, they are not narrated with perfect continuity. How can you derive authority from them?

Well-Wisher: The unanimity of opinion concerning the Prophet's will according to us is proved by the statements of the Holy Progeny of the Holy Prophet. Moreover, you may recall that I told you on previous nights that your ulama’ regard a lone report as valid. Besides, in these reports, if there is no exact agreement of wording, there is certainly agreement of general meaning.

Besides, you attach undue importance to continuity of reports. When you are silenced by our arguments, you take shelter behind the need for continuity. Can you prove the continuity of the hadith 'la nuris' (we leave no heirs)? You yourself admit that the narrator of this hadith was Abu Bakr or Aus Ibn Hadasan. But millions of monotheists and sincere Muslims in every age have rejected this so-called hadith. The best proof of the falsity of this hadith is that it was rejected by the gate of the knowledge of the Holy Prophet, ‘Ali, and by the entire progeny of the Holy Prophet. These people have proved that the hadith was concocted.

As I have already said earlier, the Holy Prophet said: "For every prophet there is a vicegerent and heir; verily, ‘Ali is my vicegerent and heir."

If you say that their inheritance did not mean inheritance of wealth but that of knowledge (although it has been proven that they meant inheritance of wealth) my point of view becomes clearer. The heir of the Prophet's knowledge deserved the position of caliphate more than any one of those who were devoid of the Holy Prophet's knowledge.

Second, it has been proven that the Prophet made ‘Ali his immediate successor and heir, according to the hadith narrated by your own ulama’. Allah appointed him to this rank. Could the Prophet have neglected to tell his successor and heir?

Moreover, it is very strange that in resolving questions regarding religious laws Abu Bakr and ‘Umar accepted ‘Ali's decisions. Your own ulama’ and historians have recorded the judgments pronounced by ‘Ali during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman.

Hafiz: It is very strange that you claim that the caliphs did not know the religious ordinances and that ‘Ali used to remind them.

Well-Wisher; There is nothing strange about it. To know all the ordinances is very difficult. It would not be possible for a man to have such perfect knowledge unless he were the Prophet of Allah or the 'Gate of Knowledge' of the Holy Prophet. Your own great ulama’ have recorded these facts in their authentic books. I cite an example so that uninformed men may not think that we say these things to offend them.

"‘Umar wanted to stone a woman because she had given birth to a child after a six-month pregnancy. ‘Ali said, 'Allah says in the Holy Qur'an that the time, from conception till the prescribed time of suckling, covers a period of thirty months. Since the suckling period is for two years, the period of pregnancy is six months. This means that a birth of a child is possible after a pregnancy of six months.' So ‘Umar set the woman free and said, 'If ‘Ali had not been there, ‘Umar would have perished.'"

In the same chapter he quotes from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal's Manaqib: "When ‘Umar faced a difficult problem and was unable to understand it, he relied upon ‘Ali's understanding." A number of such events took place during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Uthman. When they became entangled in some difficulty, they called ‘Ali as the real arbiter. They themselves acted according to his decision.

Now you may wonder why they did not accept ‘Ali's evidence in the case of Fadak. Now in that case they chose to follow their own desires and snatched away the right of Fatima.

The third argument to prove the falsity of this hadith is Caliph Abu Bakr's own statement and action. If the hadith were correct, whatever the Holy Prophet had left would have been confiscated. The heirs would have had no right over anything left behind, but Abu Bakr gave Fatima's apartment to her and also gave the apartments of the wives of the Holy Prophet, A’ysha, Hafsa, and others to them as their heritage.

Besides this, if the hadith were correct and if Abu Bakr believed that it was the Holy Prophet's ordinance, then why, after confiscating Fadak (which he considered to be charity belonging to the Muslims) did he write a document that the property be returned to Fatima? Later Caliph ‘Umar intervened and destroyed the document.

Hafiz: This is a unique statement. I have never heard that the Caliph returned Fadak. What is the source of this report?

Well-Wisher: By now you are probably aware that I never make a claim which I cannot fully support. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha and ‘Ali Ibn Burhanu'd-din Shafi'i in his Ta'rikh Siratu'l-Halabiyya, vol. III, p. 391, write that Abu Bakr was moved to tears by Fatima's impassioned speech. He wept because of Fatima's plight and subsequently wrote a document stating that the property be returned to her. But ‘Umar destroyed the document.

It is however surprising that the same ‘Umar, who during Abu Bakr's caliphate objected to the returning of Fadak, returned it to its heirs during his own caliphate. Similarly the Amawid and Abbasid caliphs also returned it to the heirs of Fatima.

Hafiz: What you say is indeed very surprising. How is it possible that Caliph ‘Umar who, according to your statement, had so bitterly interfered in the return of Fadak to Fatima returned it to the heirs of Fatima?

Well-Wisher: Surprising it is, of course. I submit, with your permission, the reports of your accredited ulama’ on the authority of the caliphs who returned and took back Fadak.

The well known traditionist and historian of Medina, Allama Samhudi (died 911 A.H.), in his Ta'rikhu'l-Medina and Yaqut Ibn Abdullah Rumi in his Mu'ajamu'l-Buldan, state that during his caliphate, Abu Bakr took possession of Fadak. ‘Umar, during his reign, returned it to ‘Ali and Abbas. If Abu Bakr occupied it on the order of the Holy Prophet and considered it the property of the Muslims, on what principle did ‘Umar entrust the property of all the Muslims to a single individual?

Sheikh: Perhaps his intention in releasing the property to a single individual was that it would remain in the custody of the Muslims.

Well-Wisher: Sometimes a witness is cleverer than the plaintiff for whom he gives evidence. The Caliph had no such idea. If the property had been returned for the expenses of the Muslims, it must have been so recorded in history. But all your prominent historians write that it was released in favor of ‘Ali and Abbas. ‘Ali accepted Fadak as its rightful heir, not as an individual Muslim. One Muslim may not possess the property of all the Muslims.

Well-Wisher: ‘Ali and Abbas were not alive during the time of ‘Umar Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz. That is a separate story. Allama Samhudi in his Ta'rikhu'l-Medina and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. IV, p. 81, narrate from Abu Bakr Jauhari that when ‘Umar Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz occupied the seat of the caliphate, he wrote to his governor at Medina to return Fadak to the descendants of Fatima. Accordingly, he called Hasan Ibn Hasanu'l-Mujtaba (and according to some reports he called Imam ‘Ali Ibnu'l-Husain) and returned Fadak to him.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes about it in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. IV, p.81, in the following words: "This was the first property which was snatched away unjustly and then was given over to the descendants of Fatima by ‘Umar Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz."

It remained in their possession for a long time until Caliph Yazid Ibn Abdu'l-Malik usurped it again. Then the Bani Umayya occupied it. When the caliphate went to the Bani Abbas, the first Abbasid Caliph, Abdullah Saffa, entrusted Fadak to the descendants of Imam Hasan, who distributed its income, according to the rights of inheritance, to the descendants of Fatima.

When Mansur persecuted the descendants of Imam Hasan, he snatched away Fadak from them again. When his son, Mahdi, became the caliph, he returned it to them. When Musa ibn Hadi became the caliph, he again usurped Fadak. When Mamunu'r-Rashid the Abbasid occupied the seat of the caliphate, he ordered Fadak to be released to the descendants of ‘Ali.

Yaqut Hamawi quotes Mamun's order in his Mu'ajamu'l-Buldan. Mamun wrote to his governor at Medina: "Verily, the Holy Prophet of Allah bequeathed Fadak to his daughter, Fatima. This fact was established and commonly known to the descendants of the Holy Prophet."

The well known poet, Di'bal Khuza'i, was also present at this time. He recited some couplets, the first of which means: "Today we are all happy and rejoicing. Mamun has returned Fadak to the Bani Hashim."

It has been proved by irrefutable arguments that Fadak had been given by the Holy Prophet to Fatima. It was usurped without any justification. But later caliphs, on grounds of justice or for political considerations, returned it to the descendants of that oppressed lady.

Hafiz: If Fadak was bestowed upon her as a gift, why did she claim it as her heritage and not say anything about a gift?

Well-Wisher: At first she claimed it as a gift. But when witnesses were required from the property's occupants, in contradiction to the injunction of the Holy Prophet of Islam, she produced witnesses. Their evidence was rejected. She was thereby forced to seek protection under the law of inheritance.

Hafiz; I am afraid you are mistaken. We have not seen any record of Fatima's claim that Fadak was a gift.

Well-Wisher: No, I am not mistaken. This fact is recorded not only in Shi’as books, but also in those written by your own prominent ulama’. It is recorded in Siratu'l-Halabiyya, p.39, compiled by ‘Ali Ibn Burhanu'd-din Halabi Shafi'i (died 1044 A.H.) that at first Fatima remonstrated with Abu Bakr that she owned Fadak and that it had been given to her by the Holy Prophet of Allah. Since witnesses were not available, she was forced to claim her right according to the law of inheritance.

Also Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir al-Kabir concerning the claim of Fatima; Yaqut Hamawi in his Mu'ajamu'l-Buldan; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.IV, p. 80, from Abu Bakr Jauhari and the fanatical Ibn Hajar in Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, p.21, under the heading Shuhubhat al-Rafza, VII Shubha, narrate that the first claim of Fatima was that Fadak had been a gift. When her witnesses were rejected, she was much pained and said in anger that she would not talk to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar again.

And so it was...she never saw them again and did not speak to them. When the time of her demise approached, she specified in her will that none of these people was to take part in her funeral prayers. Her uncle, Abbas, offered the funeral prayers, and she was laid to rest at night. According to Shi’as sources and according to the statements of the Holy Imams, ‘Ali performed the funeral prayers.

Hafiz: Of course there is no doubt that Fatima was very displeased, but Abu Bakr Siddiq is not much to blame. He was obliged to act according to the manifest code of religion. Since the "Verse of Evidence" is of general significance, and a claimant must produce two men, or one man and two women, or four women as witnesses, and since in this case the number of witnesses was not sufficient, the Caliph could not give judgment in favor of Fatima.

Well-Wisher: Hafiz Sahib has said that the Caliph was obliged to act according to religious ordinances, and since complete evidence was not available he could not pronounce judgment. I will respond to his point, and I ask you to be fair in evaluating my comment.

First, you said Abu Bakr was 'compelled under religious law.' Will you please tell me which religious ordinance demands witnesses from one who is in possession of the property? It has been proved that Fatima was in possession of Fadak. As reported by all your ulama’, Abu Bakr's demanding witnesses from her was against religious law. Does our religious law not say that witnesses should be produced by the plaintiff and not by the holder of the property?

Second, nobody denies the general significance of the 'Verse of Evidence', but it also has a specific significance.

Hafiz: What do you mean by its specific significance?

Well-Wisher: The proof for this is the report recorded in your authentic books of hadith, regarding Khazima Ibn Thabit. He gave evidence in support of the Holy Prophet in a case concerning the sale of a horse. An Arab had made a claim against the Holy Prophet and his (Khazima's) single evidence was considered sufficient. The Holy Prophet gave him the title of Dhu'sh-Shahadatain because he was regarded as being equal to two just witnesses.

This example shows that the 'Verse of Evidence' allows for exceptions under some circumstances. When Khazima, an individual believer and companion from among the community, was made an exception to the verse, ‘Ali and Fatima who were infallible according to the 'Verse of Purity' were in a better position to enjoy this exception. They were definitely free from all falsehood. To reject their evidence was to reject the evidence of Allah.

Hazrat Fatima claimed that Fadak was bestowed upon her as a gift by her father and that it was in her possession and control during the Holy Prophet's lifetime. She was asked to furnish witnesses. She produced Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Hasan and Hussein as her witnesses. But their evidence was rejected. Was this action not unjust? It is beyond comprehension how anybody could reject ‘Ali's testimony.

Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an that we should be with ‘Ali, that is, we should follow him. Zaid al-Adl became the embodiment of truth because of his extreme truthfulness. Similarly, ‘Ali was also called 'the truthful,' as Allah says: "O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah, and be with the truthful ones." (9:119) "Truthful ones" refers to the Prophet Muhammad, ‘Ali, and the Holy Ahlul Bayt.

Hafiz: How does this verse prove your view, which may mean that to follow ‘Ali is obligatory for us?

Well-Wisher: (1) Your prominent scholars have written in their books and commentaries that this verse was revealed in praise of Muhammad and ‘Ali. "The truthful ones" refers to these two Holy men, and according to some reports it means ‘Ali; other reports say that it refers to the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

Imam Tha'labi in the commentary Kashfu'l-Bayan, Jalalu'd-din Suyuti reporting from Ibn Abbas in his Durru'l-Manthur, Hafiz Abu Sa'id Abdu'l-Malik Ibn Muhammad Khargushi reporting from Asma'is in his Sharafu'l-Mustafa, and Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his Hilyatu'l-Auliya narrate that the Holy Prophet said: "These truthful ones are Muhammad and ‘Ali."

And Sheikhu'l-Islam Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Hamwaini, one of your eminent scholars, in his Fara'idu's-Simtain, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, ch. 62, and Muhadith Sham in his Ta'rikh, reporting from his sources, write: "With the truthful ones, that is, with ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib."

(2) Allah says: "And he who brings the truth and he who accepts it as the truth - these are they that guard (against evil)." (39:33)

Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in Durru'l-Manthur, Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya in Manaqib, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, ch.62, and Ibn Asakir in his Ta'rikh, reporting from a selection of commentators, narrate the following on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Mujahid:

"'He who brings the truth' is Muhammad, and 'he who testifies to it' is ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib."

(3) Allah says in chapter of Hadid (Iron) of the Holy Qur'an:

"And (as for) those who believe in Allah and his apostles, these it is who are the truthful and the faithful ones in the sight of their Lord; they shall have their reward and their light." (57:19)

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad and Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Manazil Mina'l-Qur'an Fi ‘Ali narrate on the authority of Ibn Abbas that this Holy verse was revealed in praise of ‘Ali referring to him as being among the truthful ones.

(4) In the Chapter Nisa (Women) Allah says:

"And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors from among the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the good, and a goodly company are they." (4:69)

In this verse also the truthful ones refers to ‘Ali. There are many hadith narrated by your ulama’ and ours, indicating that ‘Ali was the truthful one of the community and in fact the most exalted among the truthful ones.

Many of your prominent ulama’ have written in their books that the Holy Prophet said: "There are three great truthful ones: - Hizqil, the Believer of the people of Pharaoh; Habib Najjar of the Sura Yasin, and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who is superior to them all." The following have all recorded this hadith: Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir Kabir; Imam Tha'labi in Kashfu'l-Bayan; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in Durru'l-Manthur;

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in the Musnad; Ibn Shirwaih in Firdaus; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p.451; Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in Manaqib; and Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa (30th hadith out of the 40 hadith that he has commented on concerning the virtues of ‘Ali) quoting from Bukhari, who reports from Ibn Abbas, with the exception of the last phrase.

Also Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 42, quoting from the Musnad of Imam Hanbal; Abu Nu'aim Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i; the great orator Khawarizmi, quoting from Abu Laila and Abu Ayyub Ansari, in his Manaqib; Ibn Hajar in his Sawa'iq (and a host of others) narrate that the Holy Prophet said: "There are three truthful ones: - Habib Najjar, the Believer of the people of the Chapter Yasin who said, 'O people! Follow the prophets;' Hizqil, the believer of the people of Pharaoh, who said, 'Do you kill a man who worships Allah?', and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who is the most exalted of them all."

People are astounded to see how your understanding is subdued by your perversity. You yourselves prove with various hadith in conformity with the Holy Qur'an, that ‘Ali occupied the highest rank among the truthful ones and yet you call others as "siddiq" (truthful) although not a single verse has been reported about their being truthful.

Gentlemen! Please be just. Was it proper to reject the evidence of the person whom Allah calls "siddiq" in the Qur'an, one whom we have been commanded to follow?

The Holy Prophet said: "‘Ali is always with truth and truth revolves round ‘Ali." Khatib Baghdadi in his Ta'rikh, vol. IV, p. 321, Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya in Manaqib, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Masnad, Fakhru'd-din Razi in Tafsir al-Kabir, vol.I, p. 111, Ibn Hajar Makki in Jam'u's-Saghir, vol.II, pp. 74,75, 140 and Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, ch.IX,Fasl 11, hadith 21, narrating from Umm Salma and Ibn Abbas also in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 65, p. 185, taking from Jam'u's-Saghir of Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, in addition, in Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafa, p.116, Faizu'l-Qadir, vol. IV, p. 358, narrating from Ibn Abbas Manaqibu's-Sabi'in, p. 237, hadith 44 quoting from the author of Firdaus; Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, ch.59, Part 2, p. 238, narrating from Umm Salma and Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, some of them narrating from Umm Salma, some from A’ysha and some from Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr, all narrate that they heard the Holy Prophet saying: "‘Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with ‘Ali; there will never be a difference between the two, and the two will not separate from each other until they reach me at the pool of Kauthar."

Some narrators have reported these words: "The right is always with ‘Ali, and ‘Ali is always with the right. There will be no difference between the two, and the two will not be separate from each other."

Ibn Hajar writes in Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, ch. 9, Part 2, p. 77, that the Holy Prophet on his deathbed, said: " I leave behind with you two things: The book of Allah and my progeny, my Ahlul Bayt." Then, holding ‘Ali's hand, he raised it and said: "This ‘Ali is with the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is with ‘Ali. The two will not separate from each other till they reach me at the pool of Kauthar. Then I will ask each of them about the matter of succession."

Also it is generally narrated that the Prophet said: "‘Ali is with the right and the right is always with ‘Ali. They revolve around each other."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi, in Tadhkirat al-Khawasu'l-Umma, p.20, in connection with the 'Hadith of Ghadir', narrates that the Holy Prophet said: "Let the right move round ‘Ali, in whatever direction he moves." Sibt commenting on this says: "This hadith proves that if there is any difference between ‘Ali and any other companion, the right will certainly be with ‘Ali."

It is recorded in the books which have been mentioned and in other authentic books of yours that the Holy Prophet often said: "He who obeys ‘Ali verily obeys me, and he who obeys me verily obeys Allah. He who disobeys ‘Ali verily disobeys me, and he who disobeys me verily disobeys Allah." Abu'l-Fath Muhammad Ibn Abdu'l-Karim Shahrastani reports in his Milal-wa-Nihal that the Holy Prophet said: "The reality is that ‘Ali is always on the right, and those who follow him are on the right."

With all these explicit reports, which are recorded in your own authentic books, wasn't refusing to agree with ‘Ali the same as refusing to agree with the Holy Prophet?

The second point that you have made is that the Caliph was compelled to act according to the outward code of religion, since the "verse of Evidence" in its general sense applied in this case. Hence, in the absence of witnesses, he could not give away the "property of the Muslims" to Fatima, on the basis of her claim alone. Rather, he was so cautious that he demanded, in contradiction to the religious injunction, witnesses from the actual occupant of the property. First, I have already told you that Fadak was not the property of the Muslims.It was given to Fatima as a gift by her father, and it was held in possession by her.

Second, if the Caliph actually wanted to follow religious law, he should have strictly followed it in all cases. Why did he adopt a policy of double dealing? He used to give property of Muslims to others in response to mere verbal claims without taking the evidence of any witnesses. But in the case of Fatima's property he became extraordinarily cautious.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has recorded in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. IV, p. 25, that he inquired of ‘Ali Ibnu'l-Fariqi, a teacher in the Madrasa Gharbi in Baghdad, whether Fatima was in the right and spoke the truth about her claim. "He said: 'Yes.' I said: 'If she was right and spoke the truth, why did the Caliph not release Fadak in her favor?'

He (Fariqi) smiled (though he never jested) and said that if he had released Fadak to Fatima that day, the next day she would have come to claim the caliphate for her husband. Then the Caliph would have been compelled to return that right also, since he would have accepted her truthfulness in the former case.'"

According to your own prominent scholars, the position was quite clear. They had accepted the fact that from the first day the right was with the oppressed Fatima, but their political expediency demanded that they should deprive the faultless lady of her right.

Hafiz: When did the Caliph give away the wealth of the Muslims without any witness?

Well-Wisher: When Jabir claimed that the Holy Prophet had promised that he would be paid from the booty taken at Bahrain, he was given 1,500 dinars from the Baitu'l-Mal (Public Treasury) without raising any objection or demanding any witness from him.

Hafiz: First, I have not seen such a report. Perhaps it is in your books.

Second, how can you claim that witnesses were not demanded?

Well-Wisher: It is very strange that you have not seen it. This report of Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari is one of the arguments of ulama’ in support of their view that a single report by a just companion is acceptable.

Accordingly, Sheikhu'l-Islam Hafiz Abdu'l-Fazl Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Hajar Asqalani says in his Fathu'l-Bari Fi Sharh al-Sahihu'l-Bukhari: This report proves that the narration of a just companion is acceptable even though it benefits him personally because Abu Bakr did not demand a witness from Jabir in support of his claim.

Bukhari records the same report in greater detail in his Sahih. In the chapter 'Man Yakfal un mayyit dainan' and 'Kitabu'l-Khuma fi Bab al-ma Qata'an-nabi mina'l-Bahrain,' he writes that when the booty of Bahrain was brought to Medina, Abu Bakr announced that whoever had been promised money by the Prophet of Allah or whoever had any unsatisfied claim should come and receive his due. Jabir came and said:

'The Holy Prophet promised me that when Bahrain was conquered and came under the control of the Muslims, I would be provided with a gift out of the booty.' So immediately Abu Bakr gave him 1,500 dinars without calling for any evidence, merely on the basis of his claim.

Jalalu'd-din Suyuti also has recorded this event in his Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafa in the section on the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

Men of justice: please let me know in Allah's name if this was not inequitable. Unless there was some bias at work, how was it lawful for Abu Bakr to contravene the "verse of Evidence" and give money to Jabir on the basis of his claim alone?

Besides this, Bukhari in his Sahih and many other of your ulama’ and scholars of jurisprudence, accept the single evidence of a just companion even though it gave personal benefit to him.

But they consider ‘Ali's claim unacceptable on the grounds that he wanted something for his own benefit. Was ‘Ali not a perfect individual among the companions? If you consider the matter honestly you will admit that it was not only a denial of justice, but it was all force and open deceit.

Hafiz: I think Abu Bakr did not demand witnesses from Jabir because he was one of the closely trained companions of the Holy Prophet. He had certainly heard the Holy Prophet saying: "If anybody gives a false account of me, his abode is hell."

Given this strict warning, it is quite evident that a closely trained companion and believer would not take such a wrong initiative and would not attribute a false statement to the Prophet of Allah.

Well-Wisher: Was Jabir closer to the Holy Prophet or ‘Ali and Fatima, who were specially trained by the Holy Prophet?

Hafiz: It is obvious that ‘Ali and Fatima were closer to the prophet of God, because they had been under his training since their very birth.

Well-Wisher: So you will have to admit that ‘Ali and Fatima must have been strict followers of this warning and could not, on the basis of the Holy Prophet's saying, make any false claim. And it is incumbent on Abu Bakr to accept Fatima's claim, since the rank of both those two persons was far more exalted than Jabir's (as you yourself admit). In fact, their rank was superior to all other companions. They were worthy of the "Verse of Purity" and were infallible ones.

This verse reveals the purity of the five Holy ones: Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain. In fact your eminent ulama’ also have testified to the truthfulness of these Holy persons.

With regard to Amiru'l-Mu'minin, I have already told you that the Holy Prophet has called him "The truthful one of the whole Community," and Allah also has called him "the truthful one" in the Qur'an.

For the truthfulness of Fatima Zahra, there are also many such hadith. Among them is one reported by Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in his Hilyatu'l-Auliya, vol. II, p. 42, from A’ysha, who said: "I have never seen any one more truthful than Fatima except her father."

Hafiz: Your claim that this verse was revealed in praise of those five persons cannot be accepted. In these debates you have demonstrated an extensive knowledge about our books. You should admit that in this case you are mistaken, since commentators like Qazi Baidhawi and Zamakhshari believe that this Holy verse was revealed in praise of the wives of the Prophet. And if there is any report that it was revealed in praise of those five persons, it must be a weak one.

The reason is that the verse in itself proves contrary to that meaning. The context of the "Verse of Purity" is connected with the wives and the middle part cannot be taken out of context.

Well-Wisher: The claim advanced by you is refutable from many points of view. You have said that the parts that precede and follow the verse are connected with the Prophet's wives, and hence the Ahlul Bayt are excluded from this Holy verse.

I reply that, as often happens in the course of our talk, we shift attention from one person to another and then return to the first person. There are many examples of this in the couplets of eminent Arab writers and poets.

In the Holy Qur'an itself there are many examples of this kind. In fact, if you examine the chapter in question, al-Ahzab (the clans), after addressing the wives, attention is turned to the believers. Then subsequently, the wives are addressed. Time does not permit me to submit more elaborate evidence to explain the point further.

Second, if this verse were about the wives of the Holy Prophet, the pronoun used in it would have been feminine. But since the pronoun is masculine, we know that reference is not to the wives, but to the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

Nawab: If Fatima is also included in this group why was the feminine not used?

Well-Wisher: (Turning to the ulama’) Gentlemen: you know that in this verse, although Fatima is one of the referents, the masculine is used because of its preponderance. That is, in a group of both males and females, more weight is attached to the males.

In this verse the use of the masculine is itself a proof that this statement is not weak, but has full force. Besides this, in view of the majority of the male members, the pronoun should be in the masculine gender because in the Holy Five there is one woman and four men.

Of course had this verse been about the wives of the Holy Prophet, the use of masculine for the females would have been utterly wrong. Apart from this, the conclusion drawn from the authentic hadith in your own books is that this Holy verse was revealed in praise of the progeny and not in reference to his wives.

Even though he was an extreme fanatic, Ibn Hajar Makki says in his Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa that most commentators believe that this verse was revealed in praise of ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain.

Leaving aside these arguments, the wives of the Holy Prophet are not included in the Ahlul Bayt.

It is narrated in Sahih Muslim and Jam'u'l-Usul that Hasan Ibn Samra asked Zaid Ibn Arqam whether the wives of the Holy Prophet were included in his Ahlul Bayt. Zaid said: "By Allah, no. A wife remains with her husband for a certain period, but when he divorces her, she goes to her father's home, joins her mother's family, and is completely cut off from her husband. The Ahlul Bayt are those members of the family of the Holy Prophet for whom charity is forbidden. They will not be separated from the Ahlul Bayt wherever they go."

Apart from the unanimity of views among the Ithna' Ashari Shi’as about the Holy progeny, there are many hadith recorded in your own books, which disprove the assumption that the wives of the Prophet are included in his Ahlul Bayt.

Even Ibn Hajar Makki, despite his being opposed to the Shi’as in many respects has acknowledged its real meaning in seven ways. He says in Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa that this verse was revealed in praise of Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain and that only these Holy personalities were referred to in this verse.

In Jam'i-Bainu's-Sihahu's-Sitta, Mauta of Imam Malik Ibn Anas, Sahih of Bukhari and Muslim, Sunan of Abu Dawud and Sijistani, and Tirmidhi, Jam'u'l-Usul and other books, your ulama’ and historians generally admit that this verse was revealed in praise of the Holy Five. And according to your sect, this hadith has been transmitted without interruption.

Many narrators of hadith have recorded the incident concerning harrira. Among them are Imam Tha'labi in his Tafsir, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul, quoting from the Sahih of Tirmidhi and Muslim: all narrate from the wife of the Holy Prophet, Ummu'l-Mu'minin Umm Salma, who said: "The Holy Prophet was in my house when Fatima brought a cup of harrira to him. At that time he was sitting on the porch where he used to sleep. He had a Khaibari mantle under his feet. I was offering prayers in my apartment.

The Prophet asked Fatima to call her husband and sons. Soon ‘Ali, Hasan, and Husain came in and all shared the harrira. Gabriel appeared and revealed this Holy verse to the Prophet:

'Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the house! and to purify you with a (thorough) purifying.' (33:33)"

"Then the Holy Prophet covered all of them with his mantle, raised his hands towards the sky, and said: 'O Allah, these constitute my progeny. Keep them away from every impurity and purified with perfect purification.'"

Umm Salma says that she moved forward and desired to enter the mantle saying: "O Prophet of Allah, may I also join the group?" The Holy Prophet replied: "No, remain in your own place, you are in virtue." This meant that she could not be included among the Ahlul Bayt and attain their rank, but that her end was to be good.

Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir adds that the Prophet said: "All sins have been withheld from you" and "You have been given robes of blessings." It is of course very strange of your unjust ulama’, who write in their authentic books that ‘Ali and Fatima were included in the "Verse of Purity" (and the greatest impurity is telling lies). Yet they reject ‘Ali's Imamate (vicegerency) and refuse to accept his evidence in support of Fatima about her claim to Fadak. It is not understood on what criterion the claimants of justice form a judgment.

Now let us come back to our original point. Was it proper to reject the statements of ‘Ali and Fatima and deprive them of their right, but accept Jabir's claim without any hesitation although he was only an ordinary Muslim?

Hafiz: It can never be accepted that the Caliph of the Holy Prophet, who was extremely close to the Holy Prophet, would be inclined to usurp Fadak. Certainly Fadak was of no use to the Caliph, who had the entire Baitu'l-Mal (public treasury) of the Muslims under his control.

Well-Wisher: It is quite plain that he did not need it. But the political group of that time considered it necessary to ruin the Holy family of the Holy Prophet. They subjected these purified ones to all kinds of worries, afflictions, and poverty, so that they could not think of caliphate. Worldly men do whatever is necessary to make themselves prosper in this world.

These politicians realized that if the grand family had control over worldly wealth, people would certainly incline towards them. Political considerations drove them to usurp Fadak and to close all their avenues of financial means.

Among the things banned for them was the khums, on which so much stress has been laid in the Holy Qur'an. Since Allah had forbidden charity for the Holy Prophet and his descendants, the door of khums was opened to them. He says in the Holy Qur'an, Anfal (The Spoils of War):

"And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the wayfarer." (8:41)

This provision was made so that the progeny of the Holy Prophet might live in peace and might not need the help of their community. But soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet, they were deprived of this privilege also. Caliph Abu Bakr denied this right of the Ahlul Bayt and said that khums should be used for war materials. The Prophet's family was thus made helpless from all sides.

Imam Shafi'i Muhammad Ibn Idris tells about it in his Kitabu'l-Umm, p. 69: "The descendants of the Holy Prophet for whom Allah has apportioned khums in place of charity, cannot be given any share, great or small, out of the compulsory charities. It is forbidden for them to accept it. Those who deliberately give compulsory charity to them will not be absolved from their responsibilities. By denying the right of khums to them, charity, which is forbidden to them, will not become lawful.

Even during the caliphate of ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, the progeny of the Holy Prophet were deprived of their rightful claim on the grounds that the amount of khums was so large that it could not be given to the near relations of the Holy Prophet. It was decided that the money should be used for military expenditures. They are deprived of this right to this day.

Hafiz: Imam Shafi'i says that khums should be divided in five parts: one part goes to the Holy Prophet, which is used for the expenses and needs of the Muslims, the second part is for his near relatives and the remaining three parts are for orphans, the needy, and travelers.

Well-Wisher: Commentators in general agree that in the days of the Holy Prophet this verse was revealed for the help of the descendants and near relatives of the Holy Prophet. Khums was used for their expenses.

According to Shi’as law, in obedience to the practice adopted by the Prophet's family and by the Holy Imams and also in conformity with the meaning of the Holy verse cited above, khums is divided into six parts. The three parts meant for Allah, the Holy Prophet and his nearest relatives go to the Imam and, in his ghaiba (occultation), to his representative, a mujtahid.

He is a just and expert jurist, who spends the money for the benefit of the Muslims, according to his own discretion. The remaining three parts are apportioned to orphans, the needy and the pure followers of the Holy Prophet. But after the demise of the Holy Prophet, this right was denied his descendants.

Your own prominent ulama’, like Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, in his Durru'l-Mansur, vol. III; Tabari, Imam Tha'labi in his Tafsir al-Kashfu'l- Bayan, Jarullah Zamakhshari in his Kashshaf, Qushachi in his Sharh al-Tajrid, Nisa'i in his Kitab al-Alfiy, and others unanimously acknowledge the fact that this innovation was introduced by clever politicians after the demise of the Holy Prophet.

Hafiz: You think that a mujtahid has the right to exercise his discretion. Didn't Caliphs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar exercise their judgment and try to help the Muslims?

Well-Wisher: Of course a mujtahid has the right to form a judgment, but he may not overturn a clear ordinance. Do you prefer the opinion of Caliphs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to that of the Qur'anic verse in question and to the practice of the Holy Prophet? Please be just and tell us whether they had some particular motives behind all this. A man with common sense would be led to believe that these were not ordinary affairs, but they aimed at making the family of the Holy Prophet helpless.

Apart from all this, Allah has declared ‘Ali the witness of the Holy Prophet. He says in the Qur'an

"Is he then who has with him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness from Him...a guide and a mercy?" (11:17)

Hafiz: So far as my knowledge goes "who has a clear proof from his Lord" means the Holy Prophet and "a witness" means the Holy Qur'an. Why do you claim that here "witness" means ‘Ali?

Well-Wisher: I don't express my personal opinion about Qur'anic verses. What we have known from the progeny of the Holy Prophet is that "witness" here means ‘Ali. The ulama’ and the commentators have held the same view.

Khatib Khawarizmi writes in his Manaqib that people asked Ibn Abbas what was meant by "witness." He said: "This refers to ‘Ali, who bore witness to the Holy Prophet." So, according to these testimonies of your own reliable books, it was incumbent on the community to accept the evidence of ‘Ali.

Allah Himself has called him a witness of the Prophet. Just as the Holy Prophet acknowledged the distinctive quality of Khazima Ibn Thabit and characterized his evidence equivalent to two Muslims and bestowed on him the title of Dhu'sh-Shahadatain, Allah Almighty also has expressed in this verse the exalted position of ‘Ali and has identified him as a "witness" for the Holy Prophet. One wonders on what religious principle these people decided to reject the testimony of ‘Ali.

Can you accept their judgment that ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was most averse to temporal wealth and whose conduct and character were acknowledged by friends and foes alike, was a worldly man? Even harsher words were used against him, which I cannot utter. They are all recorded in your own books.

So using the words "his personal interest was involved in the case," they tried to convince people that it was possible for ‘Ali to give false evidence for the benefit of his wife and children. (May Allah excuse my words!) How strange that although Allah has identified him as a reliable witness, these cunning people rejected his testimony.

Even though the Qur'an identifies ‘Ali's truthfulness, he suffered because of the accusations of the politicians. He said in his Shiqshiqayya Sermon: "I endured great pain. It was as though I were being pricked in the eye and strangled."

These words amply prove the Holy Imam's extreme suffering. He said: "I swear by Allah that the son of Abu Talib is fonder of death than a suckling is of his mother's breast." When the accursed Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi struck his head with a poisoned sword, he said: "By the Lord of the Ka'ba, I am victorious."

Gentlemen, what happened should not have happened. But today it is not proper for sagacious ulama’ like you to cause further trouble to the dearly loved one of Allah and His Prophet and create misunderstanding among uninformed people. You are well aware that tormenting ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib is really tormenting the Holy Prophet of Allah.

Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini in his Fara'id have reported that the Holy Prophet said: "He who oppresses ‘Ali, oppresses me. O people, whoever oppresses ‘Ali shall rise on the Day of Judgment as a Jew or Christian."

I recall another hadith. Permit me to narrate it. To relate a hadith of the Holy Prophet and to hear it is worship. This hadith has been recorded by Bukhari in his Sahih; Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad; Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Manazala Mina'l-Qur'an fi ‘Ali'; Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib and Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib narrate it.

Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Haskani also narrates it from Hakam Abu Abdullah Hafiz, he from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abi Dawud Hafiz, he from ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad Ajali, he from 'Ibad Ibn Yaqub, he from Artat Ibn Habib, he from Abu Khalid Wasti, he from Zaid Ibn ‘Ali, he from his father ‘Ali Ibn Husain, he from his father, Husain Ibn ‘Ali, he from his father ‘Ali Ibn ‘Ali Talib; each of those narrators said that the Holy Prophet said while holding a hair of his beard:

"O ‘Ali, he who injures a single hair of yours, really injures me; he who injures me really injures Allah, and he who injures Allah is cursed by Allah."

Gentlemen, consider what happened. The evidence of ‘Ali was rejected publicly. Fatima's property was confiscated. Fatima felt this oppressive blow so seriously that she left this world in the prime of her youth, full of indignation.

Hafiz: It is obvious that in the beginning Fatima was quite indignant, but when at last she saw the Caliph's verdict was correct, she was no longer angry. At last she left this world perfectly satisfied and contented.

Well-Wisher: If what you say is correct, why do your eminent ulama’ write just the reverse of it? For instance, two reliable scholars, Bukhari and Muslim, write in their Sahih that Fatima rejected Abu Bakr because she was angry. Because of her displeasure she did not talk to him for the rest of her life. When she died, her husband, ‘Ali, buried her at night. He did not allow Abu Bakr to join her funeral and offer prayers for her.

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i has recorded the same report in his Kifaya, ch.99. Also Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba Dinawari in his Imama wa's-Siyasa, p.14, writes that Fatima, while sick in bed, said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar: "Let Allah and the angels be my witnesses that both of you have made me indignant. When I meet the Holy Prophet, I will certainly complain against you." The same book also records: "Fatima was indignant with Abu Bakr and refused to see him for the rest of her life."

Besides these, there are many other such reports and hadith recorded in your authentic books.

There is a well known hadith narrated by many of your ulama’, like Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad; Sulayman Qanduzi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda; Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Ibn Hajar in Sawa'iq, reporting from Tirmidhi, Hakim and others, with a slight difference in wording, that the Holy Prophet of Allah repeatedly said: "Fatima is a part of my body, she is the light of my eyes, she is the fruit of my heart, she is my soul between my two sides.

He who grieves Fatima grieves me; he who grieves me, grieves Allah; he who makes her angry, makes me angry; what pains Fatima pains me."

Ibn Hajar Asqalani, in his al-Isaba fi tamyiz as-Sahaba, quotes from the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "Fatima is a part of my body; what pains her, pains me; that which exalts her spiritual attainment exalts my spiritual attainment."

Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, vol. II, p.40, and Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in his Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, report that the Holy Prophet said: "Verily, Fatima, my daughter, is a part of my body; what makes her happy, makes me happy; what is painful to her is painful to me."

Abu'l-Qasim Husain Ibn Muhammad (Raghib Ispahani) narrates in his Mahadhiratu'l-Ubada, vol.II, p. 204, that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "Fatima is a part of my body; hence, he who enrages her, enrages me."

Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Bukhari in his Sahih, in the chapter Manaqib Qarabat al-Rasulullah, p.71, quotes from Miswar Ibn Makhrama who said that the Holy Prophet said: "Fatima is a part of my body, so whoever enrages Fatima, verily, enrages me."

There are many such hadith recorded in your authentic books, like Sahih of Bukhari; Sahih of Muslim; Sunan of Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Musnad of Imam Hanbal; Sawa'iq al-Ibn Hajar; and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi's Yanabiu'l-Mawadda. How would you reconcile these hadith with reports which say that Fatima did not leave this world angry with those persons?

Sheikh: These hadith are correct, but it is also reported about ‘Ali that, when he intended to marry Abu Jahl's daughter, the Prophet of Allah became angry with him and said: "Whoever grieves Fatima grieves me, and whoever grieves me is the accursed one of Allah."

Well-Wisher: We should accept or reject things using common sense and wisdom. Allah says in the Holy Qur'an:

"Therefore give good news to my servants, those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding." (39:19)

A report was narrated by your elders. Today you support their words without assessing their merits. I am obliged to give you a brief reply. First, your own ulama’ have acknowledged the fact that ‘Ali was included in the "Verse of Purity" and was perfectly pure. Second, in the verse of Mubahala, Allah has called him the "self" of the Holy Prophet, as we have already discussed on previous nights. We have shown that he was also the "gate of the knowledge of the Holy Prophet of Allah" and was fully aware of Qur'anic injunctions and ordinances.

He knew that Allah said in the chapter of Ahzab (the clans) of the Holy Qur'an:

"And it does not behoove you that you should give trouble to the Messenger of Allah." (33:53)

Since this is true, how could ‘Ali do or say anything that would annoy the Holy Prophet? And how can one imagine that the embodiment of virtue i.e., the Holy Prophet would be displeased with that exalted personality who was loved by Allah? And would he be displeased for an act permitted by Allah, as He says in the Holy Qur'an:

"Then marry such women who seem good to you, two, or three, or four"? (4:3)

This order of nika (marriage) is of general significance and is meant for the whole community as well as for the prophets and vicegerents. And if we suppose that Amiru'l-Mu'minin had any such intention, it was permitted for him.

The Holy Prophet of Allah could not resent any permissible act, nor did he use such words. Every sensible man, after careful consideration, would know that this report is one of the forged reports of the Bani Umayya. Your own eminent scholars admit this fact.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali quotes a report from his leader and teacher, Abu Ja'far Iskafi Baghdadi, in his Sharh al-Nahju'l- Balagha, vol. I, p.358, that Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan had formed a group of companions and the 'tabi'in' (the 'second' generation which immediately followed the Prophet) for the purpose of forging hadith in condemnation of ‘Ali. Their purpose was to make him a target of reproach so that the people would keep aloof from him.

Among them were Abu Huraira, Amr Ibn As, Mughira Ibn Shaiba, Urwa Ibn Zubair, one of the tabi'in was also with them. Abu Ja'far Iskaf has also referred to some of their fabricated hadith. Speaking about Abu Huraira, he says that he was the man who narrated a hadith purporting to show that ‘Ali sought to take Abu Jahl's daughter in marriage during the time of the Holy Prophet.

This made the Holy Prophet angry, and he said from the pulpit, "A friend of Allah and an enemy of Allah cannot be together. Fatima is a part of my body. He who grieves her grieves me. He who wants to marry Abu Jahl's daughter should seek separation from my daughter."

After this, Abu Ja'far says that this hadith is known as the hadith of Karabisi', since every baseless hadith is called 'karabisi' (literally 'a clothes-seller'). Ibn Abi'l-Hadid says that this hadith is reported in the two Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim from Miswar Ibn Makhrama az-Zahr.

And Sayyid Murtaza Alamu'l-Huda, who was one of the greatest ulama’ of the Shi’as, says in his book Tanzia'u'l-Anbia wa'l-A'imma that this report was narrated by Husain Karabisi, who is known for his extreme opposition to the Holy Ahlul Bayt.

He belonged to the Nawasib and was one of the bitterest enemies of this exalted family. His report is not acceptable. According to hadith recorded in your own authentic books, ‘Ali's enemy is a munafiq (hypocrite). The munafiq, according to the Holy Qur'an, is an infernal being. Therefore his report is without merit.

Besides this, the hadith condemning people who caused annoyance to Fatima are not confined to Karabisi's statement or the forged report by Abu Huraira about Abu Jahl's daughter. There are many other hadith on this topic.

Among them is one reported by Parsa of Bukhara in his Faslu'l-Khitab; one by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad and by Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawadda XIII of Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, on the authority of Salman Muhammadi, that the Holy Prophet said:

"Fatima's love is useful to us in a hundred places, the easiest of them being Death, the Grave, the Mizan (the Balance), Sirat (the bridge) and the Questioning. So, if my daughter, Fatima, is pleased with somebody, I am also pleased with him. If I am pleased with somebody, Allah is also pleased with him.

If my daughter, Fatima, is displeased with somebody, I am also displeased with him. If I am displeased with him, Allah is also displeased with him. Woe be to him who oppresses Fatima and her husband. Woe be to him who oppresses ‘Ali and Fatima and their Shi’as."

I ask you what conclusion you draw in light of these authentic hadith and the hadith recorded by Bukhari and Muslim that Fatima remained indignant with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar until she died.

Hafiz: The hadith are of course correct and are recorded in detail in our authentic books. In fact, I also doubted Karabisi's report that ‘Ali wanted to ask Abu Jahl's daughter to marry him. I did not believe it, and now I am indeed thankful that you have solved this problem for me.

Second, in these hadith "indignation" means religious indignation and not ordinary worldly indignation. Her indignation regarding Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, which is recorded in all our reliable books, was not religious.

That is, Fatima did not feel angry with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar because they violated any religious injunction. Of course, if anyone had aroused her religious indignation, he would have been subject to his Prophet's curse.

But in fact Fatima's anger resulted from a change in her condition, which every sensitive person feels when he fails to achieve his object. Since Fatima had made a request for Fadak and the Caliph did not accept her claim, she was naturally affected by it and felt indignant at that time. But later this slight displeasure disappeared from her mind, and she was satisfied with the decision of the Caliph.

The proof of her satisfaction was her silence. And when ‘Ali took the reins of the caliphate, he did not for all his supreme authority; take back Fadak under his control. This, too, is proof that he was satisfied with the decision of the previous caliphs.

Well-Wisher: First, you said that Fatima's anger was not religious but worldly. You have expressed this view without careful study. According to the principles of the Qur'anic verses and the hadith of the Holy Prophet, no perfect believer would ever show such indignation, not to speak of Fatima, whose eminence is evident from the "Verse of Purity": "Verse of Mubahala" and the Sura Hal Ata of the Holy Qur'an. (76:1)

There are numerous hadith in your and our authentic books that Fatima occupied the highest rank of iman (belief) and that the Holy Prophet had explicitly said about her: "Verily, Allah has filled my daughter, Fatima, with belief from head to foot."

Any believer, man or woman, whose special mark is to admit the truth, would never show any indignation when a judge issues a just order. Nor would such a believer cling to that anger and wrath till his death insisting in his will that none of those who were in any way connected with those orders should be allowed to join in his funeral prayers.

Moreover Fatima, about whose purity Allah Himself gives evidence, could never make a false claim, so that a judge might reject her claim.

Second, if Lady Fatima's indignation was merely "worldly indignation" as you call it, or her disappointment in having her claim rejected, her anger should have subsided soon, particularly after the regret shown by those responsible for her anger. There should have been no grief in her heart.

The Holy Prophet said: "One of the signs of a believer is that he does not naturally nurse any grudge based on carnal sentiments, against anybody." Also the Holy Prophet said: "If a believer happens to commit a fault, the aggrieved believer does not feel antipathy towards him for more than three days."

So the pure and truthful Fatima Zahra, who was, according to the testimony of Allah Almighty, imbued with faith from head to foot, could never bear malice against anybody. And it is acknowledged by both sects that Fatima left this world angry with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

So it follows from this that Fatima's indignation was purely religious. When she saw that the order was passed against her in violation of the commands of Allah and her Holy father, she felt furious with religious displeasure and this was that anger, which incurred Allah's and His Prophet's wrath.

Third, you have said that since Fatima's silence meant that she acquiesced in the decision. Here again you are mistaken. Silence does not necessarily mea nconcurrence. Sometimes the oppressor's rigidity forces acquiescence.

Fatima was not only grieved, but she left this world indignant. Both Bukhari and Muslim wrote: "Fatima was indignant with Abu Bakr. She kept aloof from him and did not talk with him for the rest of her life."

Fourth, you said that because ‘Ali did not, during the period of his caliphate, take possession of Fadak and return it to the descendants of Fatima, this indicated his acquiescence in the decision of the previous caliphs. Even here you are mistaken. The Holy Imam was not free to act during the period of his caliphate so as to have stopped any innovation or restore any right. Whenever he intended to take such a step, there was immediate opposition.

If he had returned Fadak to the descendants of Fatima, his opponents, particularly Mu'awiya and his followers, would have claimed that ‘Ali acted against the practices adopted by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Besides this, in order to pass such orders, authority and independence were necessary.

But people had not allowed him such power. He could not introduce anything which would have violated the precepts and practices of the previous caliphs. ‘Ali's powerlessness is evident from the following two examples.

Since the previous caliphs had removed the pulpit from its place where the Prophet had placed it, the Holy Imam intended to return it to its original place. But the people opposed him and would not tolerate anything contrary to the practice of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, even though it might be compatible with the practice of the Holy Prophet.

Similarly, when the Holy Imam forbade the people to offer congregational tarawih prayers, they rose against him and claimed that ‘Ali wanted to change the way of Caliph ‘Umar.

Nawab: Respected Sir! What was tarawih, which ‘Ali forbade be offered in congregation?

Well-Wisher: Literally tarawih is the plural of tarawia, which meant "sitting." Later it came to mean "sitting for rest" after the four rak'ats of prayer during the Ramadhan nights. Then it came to mean four rak'ats of recommended prayer. It is a clear ruling of Islamic jurisprudence that only obligatory prayers may be offered in congregation, whereas recommended prayers in congregation are prohibited. The Holy Prophet himself said:

"Verily, the offering of nafila (recommended prayers) in congregation during the nights of Ramadhan is an innovation. The Namaz al-Chasht (sometimes called Dhuha and recited in the forenoon) is a sin. O people! Do not say nafila prayers of Ramadhan in congregation, and do not offer Namaz al-Chasht. To be sure, performing a minor act of worship which is according to the Sunna is better than performing a major act of worship which is an innovation. Let it be known to you that every innovation is a transgression and every transgression leads to Hell."

One night during the period of his caliphate in 14 A.H. ‘Umar entered the mosque. He saw that the people had gathered there. He asked them why they had come together. The people said that they had assembled to offer Sunna prayers. ‘Umar said: "This performance is an innovation, but it is a good innovation."

Bukhari quotes in his Sahih from Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Abdu'l-Qari that when the caliph saw the people offering prayers individually, he told them that congregational prayer was preferable. He ordered Ubayy Ibn Ka'b to lead the prayers in congregation. When he came to the mosque on the next night, he saw the people offering congregational prayers in obedience to his command. He said: "How good an innovation it is."

It became the common practice until the time of Amiru'l-Mu'minin. He prohibited it, saying that since it did not exist in the time of the Holy Prophet, it was then forbidden; in fact it should not be allowed to continue.

When he came to Kufa, the Kufans asked the Holy Imam to appoint for them an Imam to lead the nafila prayers during the nights of Ramadhan. The Imam forbade them to offer that prayer in congregation. In spite of that, since the people had been accustomed to it, they did not follow the Imam's order. As soon as the Imam left that place, they gathered together and appointed one of them to lead the prayers in congregation.

The news soon reached the Holy Imam, who called his eldest son Imam Hasan and asked him to take a dagger and forbid those people to offer recommended prayers in congregation. When the people saw this, they made loud cries saying: "O ‘Ali! Hasan has come, and he does not allow us to offer prayers."

Although they knew that this practice of offering communal recommended prayers did not exist during the time of the Holy Prophet, they did not follow ‘Ali's command which conformed with the orders of the Holy Prophet.

So how could ‘Ali restore Fadak to the descendants of Fatima? If he had done so and said that it had been unjustly confiscated, the people would have cried that ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib was inclined towards the world and was usurping the right of the Muslims for their own descendants.

Hence, he thought it proper to be patient. Since the real claimant had left this world, he suspended his claim to it, so that when the last of the divinely guided Imams comes to restore rights to their just claimants, he will secure his right.

In such a state of affairs the silence of the Holy Imam did not mean that he was satisfied with the decision. If he had considered the action of the previous caliphs just, he would not have argued his case before them. Also, he would not have expressed his anguish and displeasure and would not have invoked Allah to be the arbiter.

It is recorded in Nahju'l-Balagha that ‘Ali in a letter to the Governor of Basra, Uthman Ibn Hunaif Ansari wrote: "Among those things on which the sky casts its shadow was Fadak, which was in our possession. But a group showed niggardliness and the other side, Fatima, and her descendants withdrew from pursuing their claim. And the best Judge is Allah."

You said that Fatima was satisfied with the decision in the last days of her life and pardoned those responsible for it. I am afraid you are mistaken here. As has been proved beyond doubt earlier through reliable hadith that oppressed Lady remained indignant until she died.

To prove my point of view I should like to submit the following report. Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba Dinawari (died 276 A.H.) in his Ta'rikh al-Khilafa'i'r-Rashidin, known as Al-Imama wa's-Siyasa, vol. I, p. 14 and others of your ulama’, like Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, write in their authentic books:

"‘Umar asked Abu Bakr to go with him to visit Fatima. They had certainly enraged her. (Some reports say that it was Abu Bakr, who asked ‘Umar to go with him to visit Fatima. This seems more plausible.)

In short, both of them went together to the door of Fatima but she did not allow them to visit her. When they asked ‘Ali to intervene, he remained silent, but he allowed them to go in. When they went in and saluted her, she turned her face to the wall. Abu Bakr said: 'O part of the Prophet's liver, by Allah, I value the relationship of the Holy Prophet with you more than my relationship with my daughter, A’ysha.

Would that I had died soon after the Holy Prophet of Allah. I know your rank and position more than any one else. If I have deprived you of your right of heritage, it was really because of the Holy Prophet, whom I myself heard saying: 'We prophets do not leave any heritage. What we leave is charity (for the Muslims).'

Fatima then said to Amiru'l-Mu'minin that she would remind them of a hadith of the Holy Prophet and ask them to say in the name of Allah if they had not heard the Holy Prophet saying it: 'Fatima's pleasure is my pleasure; Fatima's indignation is my indignation. So one who loves my daughter Fatima loves me; one who pleases Fatima, pleases me. One, who offends Fatima, offends me.'

Both of them said: 'Yes we heard these words from the Holy Prophet of Allah.' Then Fatima said: 'I call Allah and His Angels to witness that both of you have offended me and did not treat me justly. When I meet the Holy Prophet I will certainly complain to him of you both.'

Abu Bakr, being troubled at these words, began to weep and said: 'I seek Allah's shelter from the Holy Prophet's anger.' Fatima began to weep and said: 'I swear by Allah that I will certainly call down curses upon you in all my prayers.'

After hearing this, Abu Bakr went out, weeping. People gathered round him and consoled him. To them he said: 'Woe be to you. You are all happy, sitting with your wives comfortably, but I am in this wretched state. I do not need your allegiance. Rid me of it. By Allah, after what I have seen and heard from Fatima, I do not want any Muslim to suffer the burden of allegiance to me.'"

These reports, related by your own notable ulama’, show that the oppressed Fatima remained indignant with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar until the last hour of her life.

The clearest proof of Fatima's anger in this regard is that she made the following will to her husband, Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali: "None of those persons who have oppressed me and snatched away my right should be allowed to join my funeral. They are certainly my and the Holy Prophet's enemies. Do not allow any one of them or their associates to offer funeral prayers for me. Bury me at night when people are asleep."

Bukhari writes in his Sahih that ‘Ali complied with Lady Fatima's will and buried her at night quietly. People tried their best to find where Fatima was buried, but they could not. It is unanimously accepted that Fatima was, according to her will, buried at night. The Holy Prophet left a single daughter to serve as his memory.

Your own ulama’ agree that he said: "Fatima is a part of my body. She is my legacy and trust. Respect her as you respect me. Never do anything to incite her anger against you. If she is angry with you, I also will be angry with you."

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Faqih Shafi'i writes in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba that the Holy Prophet said: "Those who grieve Fatima will be strictly dealt with by me on the Day of Judgment. Fatima's pleasure is my pleasure, and Fatima's anger is my anger. Woe be to him with whom Fatima is indignant."

How tragic is it that for all these declarations, the Community not only ignored her but also snatched away her right and caused her so intense torment. Even while still a young woman, she declared: "I was subjected to so many troubles that if days had been subjected to such troubles, they would have turned into nights."

Ninth Session, Friday night, 2nd Sha'ban 1345 A.H.

Sheikh: You always fault the actions of the Sunnis but do not care about the ways of the Shi’as. You unjustly defend them although their actions are depraved.

Well-Wisher: I am accustomed to defending the truth. Our Imam, Amiru'l-Mu'minin, exhorted his sons, particularly Hasan and Husain, in these words: "Always speak the truth and perform your deeds in light of the hereafter. Be hostile to the oppressor and help the oppressed. "

If I have found fault with the opponents or defended the Shi’as, I have done so in support of the truth. What I complained of was based on logical reasoning. I will listen to your charges concerning wrongdoing of the Shi’as.

Sheikh: The worst thing that the Shi’as are guilty of is that they accuse Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha of adultery. It is an acknowledged fact that she had the honor of sexual intercourse with the Holy Prophet of Allah and that she was his loving wife. They do not realize what this slanderous accusation leads to. Have they not read sura an-Nur (Light) of the Holy Qur'an? Allah says:

"Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women." (24:26)

Well-Wisher: First the charge that the Shi’as accuse Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha of immoral actions and adultery is absolutely false. Never has such a thing been said by Shi’as. This assertion is a blatant calumny circulated centuries ago by the Nawasib and Khawarij in order to instigate confusion.

They attributed to the Shi’as what they themselves said. Subsequently others, without making inquiries, attacked the Shi’as as you are now doing. If you would study Shi’as books, you would not find anywhere that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha has been accused of adultery.

If you read the Shi’as histories and commentaries, you will see how they have defended Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha from the charges of adultery. The fact is that such reports were made by a group of hypocrites during the time of the Holy Prophet. Some of those involved were Mista Ibn Uthatha, Hasan Ibn Thabit and Abdullah Ibn Ubayy.

Concerning A’ysha's exoneration from the false charges of the hypocrites, seven verses were revealed in the Holy Qur'an. Shi’as believe that to make a false charge of adultery or immoral action against any Muslim is unlawful, not to mention a wife of the Holy Prophet, whether she is A’ysha or Hafsa.

Second, the Holy verse you have recited does not mean what you have said. It is not necessarily so that if a husband is a virtuous believer and worthy of Paradise that his wife will be the same. There are many instances which prove that spouses may attain different levels of virtue.

Allah says in the Sura Tahrim (The Prohibition):

"Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they were unfaithful to them, so they availed them nothing against Allah, and it was said: 'Enter the fire with those who enter.' And Allah sets forth an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh when she said: 'My Lord! Build for me a house with Thee in the Garden and deliver me from Pharaoh and his doing, and deliver me from the unjust people.'" (66:10-11)

Sheikh: It is strange that during this short period there appears to be a clear inconsistency in your statements.

Well-Wisher: Please tell me what you see as inconsistent.

Sheikh: At one point you say that accusing anybody of adultery is unlawful but at another you say that Noah's and Lot's wives were unfaithful to their husbands. Are these two sentences not inconsistent with each other? Is it not unbecoming of you to accuse the wives of the prophets of adultery and faithlessness?

Well-Wisher: I am sure you know you are adopting a deceptive manner. You know very well what "faithlessness" means in the Holy verse referred to earlier.

It is strange of you that you mistake faithlessness to mean adultery though there is a vast difference between the two. The wives of the prophets were absolutely free from adultery. Here the discussion is about their faithlessness.

First, if a wife of a prophet acts against the instructions of her husband, she is certainly faithless. Second, I am not the one who says that they proved faithless. The Qur'an itself states it: "They were unfaithful to their husbands," and unfaithfulness was not adultery. As I have said earlier, the wives of the prophets were free from this kind of unfaithfulness. So the meaning of their unfaithfulness was disobedience.

The Prophet Noah's wife was opposed to her husband and used to insult him in public. She said: "My husband is mad. Since I am associated with him all day and night, I know his true state. Do not be deceived by him." The Prophet Lot's wife used to inform the people of every guest that came to his house. She used to create mischief by disclosing the secrets of the house to his enemies.

According to Qur'anic commentators and also according to the statements of the infallible ones, the meaning of the verse of the sura an-Nur (Light) from which you make your point is that impure women deserve impure men and impure men are inclined towards them. Pure women deserve pure men and pure men are inclined towards them. In the same chapter in the preceding verse Allah says:

"The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater." (24:3)

In short, the Holy verse "impure women are for impure men..." in no way proves your point.

The criticism of A’ysha is not due to prejudice. It is because of her wrong conduct. She committed misdeeds which no other wife of the Holy Prophet, including Hafsa, daughter of ‘Umar, did. Moreover, the Shi’as' criticism is strictly within the bounds of the comments made by your own ulama’, who have reported that this anxious woman committed serious wrongs.

Sheikh: Is it proper for a noble man like you to make such charges against Ummu'l-Mu'minin?

Well-Wisher: All the wives of the Holy Prophet except Ummu'l-Mu'minin Khadija, are of equal rank. Umm Salma, Suda, A’ysha, Hafsa, Maimuna, and the others in our view all are Ummu'l-Mu'minin.

But A’ysha's conduct and her words were certainly different from those of the other women. Again, this is not merely my version, but your own prominent ulama’ have written that her life was blemished. The good and bad actions of people cannot remain hidden forever. Eventually truth reveals itself.

Sheikh: Assuredly, because she opposed ‘Ali, you find fault with her regarding insignificant matters.

Well-Wisher: We do not find fault regarding insignificant matters. A’ysha's opposition to Amiru'l-Mu'minin, Imam Hasan, Imam Husain, and the Ahlul Bayt is a separate issue. But the foundation of the ugly history of her life had been laid during the period of the Holy Prophet himself. She used to vex and torment him.

Sheikh: It is strange that you consider Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha, the beloved wife of the Holy Prophet, so morally debased that you dare to say that she vexed the Holy Prophet. How can we accept your assertion when Ummu'l-Mu'minin had definitely read the Holy Qur'an and the following verse:

" Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and he has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace." (33:57)

So it is possible for her to vex the Holy Prophet so that she could be cursed by Allah? This is definitely one of the slanders of the Shi’as.

Well-Wisher: No it is not a lie! Regarding these Holy verses, I admit that not only Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha must have read them, but her father Abu Bakr and other eminent companions must have also read them. In the light of those reports and hadith which I have mentioned in previous nights, many truths may be revealed to us provided that we are just.

The fact that A’ysha grieved the Holy Prophet is not only related by Shi’as ulama’, but by your own eminent ulama’. Imam Ghazali in his 'Ihya'u'l-Ulum, vol. II, ch. 3, Kitab al-Adabu'n-Nika, p. 135, has reported many hadith condemning A’ysha's conduct. Among them is her quarreling with the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr's intervention.

This event is also narrated by Mulla ‘Ali Muttaqi in Kanzu'l-Ummal, vol. VII, p. 116; Abu Yala in his Musnad and Abu'sh-Sheikh in his Kitab al-Amthal. They write that when Abu Bakr went to see his daughter, he found that there was a grievance between A’ysha and the Holy Prophet. The decision was left in Abu Bakr's hands.

A’ysha used insulting language in her remarks. In the course of her conversation, she asked the Holy Prophet to be fair in his attitude. This insolent remark made Abu Bakr so indignant that he slapped her so severely in her face that blood flowed down her clothes.

Also Imam Ghazali in the same Chapter on Marriage and others, too, have narrated that once, when Abu Bakr reached his daughter's house, he found that the Holy Prophet was displeased with A’ysha. He asked them to tell him what the cause of their grievance was so that he might bring about reconciliation.

The Holy Prophet asked A’ysha if she should begin telling it. She replied, 'You may begin but you should speak the truth.' In her next sentence she added, 'You are a man who really thinks himself to be a Prophet!'

These remarks show that A’ysha did not believe that the Holy Prophet was the divinely appointed Prophet. Such degrading remarks are reported in your books in large numbers. They were the cause of great anguish to the Holy Prophet.

You will note that the ulama’ and historians of both the sects have not recorded such things about the other wives of the Holy Prophet. They have not attributed such things even to Hafsa, daughter of ‘Umar. It was only A’ysha's behavior which led to her indignity.

We related only as much as your prominent ulama’ have said about her. Have you not studied Imam Ghazali's books, the histories by Tabari, Mas'udi and Ibn A'tham Kufi etc. which report that all your eminent ulama’ have described her as disobedient to the Holy Prophet?

Still, you complain because I have criticized Ummu'l-Mu'minin's conduct. Can there be any clearer blot on one's character than transgression against the order of Allah and His Prophet and revolution against the Caliph of the Holy Prophet?

In the sura of al-Ahzab (The Clans), Allah has addressed the wives of the Holy Prophet:

"And stay in your houses and display not your finery like the display of the ignorance of yore." (33:33)

Of course the other wives of the Holy Prophet complied with this order and never left their houses without an urgent reason. Even A'mash has reported this fact.

It is reported in the Sahih and other books of your traditionists and historians that people asked Suda, wife of the Holy Prophet, why she not performed the Hajj and the Umra. She replied, "It is compulsory for me to perform one Hajj and Umra and no more.

And He says: 'And stay in your houses.' So in obedience to this command, I shall not go out of my house; rather, my intention is that I will not, as far as possible, go out of the room in which the Holy Prophet of Allah had placed me until I die." In fact she did this and it was her dead body which was taken out of the room.

Suda, A’ysha, and Umm Salma, were wives of the Holy Prophet and were mothers of the believers. Of course they differ from one another because of their conduct.

According to the community, A’ysha and Hafsa are worthy of respect, not because they were the daughters of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, though you respect them on that score, but because they were the wives of the Holy Prophet. But the wives of the Holy Prophet deserve honor when they are devout, as it is clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an.

"O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the other women." (33:32)

So Suda was a pious, obedient wife of the Holy Prophet of Allah. A’ysha was a stubborn wife who conspired with Talha and Zubair against ‘Ali and went to Basra. There Uthman Ibn Hanafi, a great companion of the Prophet and governor of Basra appointed by ‘Ali, was captured. His hair and beard were pulled out; he was tortured and driven out.

More than 100 innocent, helpless persons were killed. Ibn Athir, Mas'udi, Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, and others have written in detail about this event.

After this outrage, she mounted a camel named Askar, dressed in the skin of a lion, protected by armor and entered the battlefield like a soldier. Because of her revolt, thousands of Muslims lost their lives. Was this initiative on her part not a transgression against the command of Allah and His Holy Prophet?

And what is more surprising is that she adopted this shameless stand against ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, whose virtues and merits have been so extensively recorded by your own distinguished ulama’ that it is impossible to recount them all.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Masnad, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir al-Kabir, Katib Khawarizmi in his Manaqib, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Muhammad Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, ch. 62, and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda V, narrate from the second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn Khattab and Abdullah Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali: "If all the oceans were ink, all the trees were pens, and all human beings were writers and all the Jinn maintained the records, even then, O Abu'l-Hasan! Your virtues could not be numbered."

When the Holy Prophet states that "all men and jinn combined cannot account for his virtues," how can we, with our limited means, give a complete account of his merits?

Apart from the Shi’as ulama’, your own ulama’, for all their fanaticism, have filled their books with only part of his innumerable virtues.

You should study your Siha al-Sitta, the six books of hadith. Apart from these, it is stated in Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani's Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Tabrani's Mu'ajam Kabir; Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i's Matalibu's-Su'ul; Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal's Musnad and Faza'il; Hamidi's Bainu's-Sahihain; Khawarizmi's Manaqib; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p.449; Ibn Sabbagh Maliki's Fusulu'l-Muhimma, particularly p.124, from Hafiz Abdu'l-Aziz Ibn Al'Akhzaru'l-Janabiz, who writes in his book Ma'alimu'l-'Atratu'n-Nabawiyya that Fatima Zahra said that on the night of Arafa her father, the Holy Prophet of Allah, went to her and said:

"Allah Almighty takes pride in you people before the angels and has forgiven you all and particularly ‘Ali. I, the Prophet of Allah, say without any consideration for love due to kinship that verily the most fortunate and prosperous man is he who is a friend of ‘Ali during his life or after his death. The most damned of the damned is he who is an enemy of ‘Ali, during his life or after death."

Also in the above books is a detailed hadith which I think I have referred to in earlier nights, from Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, who said that the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali: "A liar is he who thinks that he loves me while he is your enemy. O ‘Ali! He who is your friend is my friend. If somebody is my friend, Allah is his friend. If Allah is somebody's friend, He admits him to Paradise. He, who is your enemy, is my enemy. If somebody is my enemy, Allah also is his enemy and He throws him into Hell."

It is also reported from the Kitabu'l-Al of Ibn Khalawayh, narrating from Abu Sa'id Khadiri, that the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali: "O ‘Ali! Friendship with you is faith and opposition to you is hypocrisy. The first person who enters Paradise shall be your friend, and the first person who is thrown into Hell shall be your enemy."

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda III, and Hamwaini in his Fara'id report that the Holy Prophet said while among his companions: "No one loves ‘Ali except one who is a believer, and no one is hostile to him except one who is an infidel." On another occasion he said: "O ‘Ali! It is only the believer who loves you, and it is only the hypocrite who hates you."

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, p. 119, ch.62, quotes from Ta'rikh al-Damishqi, Muhadith al-Sham, and Muhadith al-Iraq, narrating from Hudhaifa and Jabir that the Holy Prophet said: "‘Ali is the best of mankind; one who refuses to accept this is an infidel."

It is also reported from Ata that people asked A’ysha about ‘Ali and she said: "He is the best of mankind. No one except an infidel has any doubt of it."

He says that Hafiz Ibn Asakir in his Ta'rikh, a work comprised of 100 volumes three volumes of which are written in praise of ‘Ali, has reported this hadith from A’ysha.

Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.17, Ibn Sabbagh Makki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma, report from Tirmidhi and Nisa'i that Abu Sa'id Khudri said: "During the days of the Holy Prophet we used to recognize the hypocrites by their animosity towards ‘Ali."

It is related in Fusulu'l-Muhimma that the Holy Prophet said to Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali: "O ‘Ali! To fight against you is to fight against me; your blood is my blood. I fight against him who fights against you; it is only the legitimate person who loves you, and it is the illegitimate one who has animosity towards you. It is only the believer who loves you, and it is only the hypocrite who is hostile to you."

Sheikh: Such hadith are not unique to ‘Ali; they have also been narrated about other caliphs.

Well-Wisher: Kindly cite other such hadith by way of example.

Sheikh: Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Malik Maghul narrates from his sources that Jabir said that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "A believer has no animosity towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and a hypocrite has no love for them."

Well-Wisher: I am again surprised to hear such a thing from you. Have you forgotten our mutual agreement on the first night that we would not rely on questionable hadith. You should not quote concocted hadith, whose narrators are liars and forgers. Quote authentic hadith.

Sheikh: Your response indicates that you have decided that if you hear any hadith from us, you will reject it.

Well-Wisher: It is not I alone who has rejected it. Even your own prominent ulama’ have rejected it. Refer to Mizanu'l-I'tidal of Dhahabi and Ta'rikh of Khatib al-Baghdadi, vol. X, p.236. You will find that most of the eminent commentators have written about the character of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Malik saying: "Verily, he was such a liar, a blasphemer, and a forger of hadith that no one has any doubt about it."

Please tell us if such a one-sided hadith narrated by a liar and forger, can be compared to those hadith which your prominent ulama’ have narrated and some of which I have already mentioned. I would advise you to consult Jami'u'l-Kabir, by Suyuti, vol. VI, p.390, Riyazu'n-Nazara, vol. IX, p.215, by Muhibu'd-din; Jami'i Tirmidhi, vol. II, p.299; Isti'ab, vol. III, p.46, by Ibn Abdu'l-Barr; Hilyatu'l-Auliya, vol. VI, p.295, by Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.17, by Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i; Fusulu'l-Muhimma, p.126, by Ibn Sabbagh Maliki.

You will find that every one of them narrated in slightly different words from Abu'dh-Dharr Ghifari who said: "During the time of the Holy Prophet we used to recognize the hypocrites by three signs: the denial of Allah and the Holy Prophet, failing to offer prayers, and animosity towards ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib." It is reported from Abi Sa'id Khudri that Abu'dh-Dharr Ghifari said: "We used to recognize the hypocrites by their enmity against ‘Ali and in the time of the Holy Prophet we had no other sign of finding out the hypccrites except that they were hostile to ‘Ali."

"O ‘Ali! A hypocrite is not your friend and a believer is not your enemy. It is only the believer who loves you, and it is only the hypocrite who hates you. A hypocrite does not love ‘Ali and a believer does not hate ‘Ali."

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. I, p.367, reports from Sheikh Abu'l-Qasim Balkhi, the chief of Mu'tazilites, that he said, 'All the hadith unanimously report those correct hadith and there is no doubt in the authenticity of those which say that the Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali, 'No one is hostile to you except the one who is a hypocrite. No one is your friend except the one who is a believer.'

Also, in volume IV of his book, on page 264, he quotes the sermon of Amiru'l-Mu'minin, in which the Holy Imam says: "If I strike a believer with this sword in his face so that he might be hostile to me, he will never be hostile to me; but if I give the whole world to a hypocrite so that he might love me, he will never love me. And this is in accordance with the utterance of the Holy Prophet who said: 'Only believers love you, only hypocrites are hostile to you.'"

There are many hadith of this kind in your reliable books. I have cited only a few of them.

Wasn't A’ysha's revolt against ‘Ali's authority a revolt against the Prophet himself? Was this fighting or her urging the people to fight against ‘Ali, due to her friendship or was it due to enmity? Obviously, it was due to hostility.

In all the hadith which I have just related, the Holy Prophet said that one of the signs of infidelity is fighting against ‘Ali. How would you reconcile the stand taken by Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha in fighting ‘Ali with these hadith? It has just come to my mind that Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda 3, has reported from A’ysha herself that the Holy Prophet said: "Allah has pledged His word to me that whoever revolts against ‘Ali is an infidel and his place is in Hell."

It is strange that when people asked her why she revolted against ‘Ali having heard such a hadith from the Holy Prophet she merely replied: "I forgot this hadith on the day of the Battle of the Camel. I did not remember it until I came to Basra."

Sheikh: But how can you find fault with Ummu'l-Mu'minin, when it is obvious that to forget is but human.

Well-Wisher: Even if I admit that she forgot that hadith on the day of the Battle of the Camel, didn't she remember it when she was returning from Mecca and all her friends including the pious wives of the Holy Prophet warned her that she should not perpetrate such an action, since opposition to ‘Ali was opposition to the Holy Prophet?

Your own historians who have recorded the Battle of the Camel have drawn attention to the fact that the Holy Prophet said: "O A’ysha! Fear that path on which the dogs of Haw'ab may bark at you." When however, on her way to Basra, she reached the brook of the Bani Kilab, dogs surrounded her litter and began barking. She asked the people what place it was. She was told that it was Haw'ab.

Then she remembered what the Holy Prophet had said. Why then did she walk into the trap of Talha and Zubair? Why did she proceed until she reached Basra where she created such a tumultuous uproar? Would you say that she had forgotten this also, or that she trod that path deliberately?

She deliberately transgressed the order of Allah and the Holy Prophet and, having conspired with Talha and Zubair, went to fight against the Caliph and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet, although she had herself reported that the Holy Prophet said: "One who fights against ‘Ali is an infidel."

Was it not a cause of distress to the Holy Prophet that as soon as the Commander of the Faithful assumed the reins of the caliphate, disturbances were created and conspirators prepared for battle against him. I have told you earlier with authentic sources that the Holy Prophet said, "He who distresses ‘Ali, verily distresses me. He who distresses me, verily distresses Allah. O people! He who distresses ‘Ali shall be raised as a Jew or Christian on the day of resurrection."

These reports can be found in your authentic books. Why then should you find fault with the Shi’as? Responsibility for the blood of innocent believers, the torture and expulsion of Uthman Ibn Hunaif, and the murder of more than 100 including the unarmed keepers of the Treasury who had no concern with the battle - forty of whom were killed in the mosque - lay squarely on the instigator of the battle. Allama Mas'udi in his Muruju'z-Dhahib, vol. II, p.7, has written about this in these words:

"Besides those who were injured, seventy of the unarmed guards of baitu'l-mal (Treasury) were put to death. Of these seventy, fifty were beheaded in prison. These people were the first among the Muslims to have been tortured to death."

Among your ulama’ and historians, Ibn Jarir and Ibn Athir have given detailed accounts of these events.

Perhaps you should expunge these reports from your authentic books. In fact, in the reprints of these books, some of your ulama’ have changed some of this disagreeable information and in some cases have omitted it altogether. You should either refuse to accept what your notable ulama’ and historians have written, or you should give up censuring the Shi’as. They say only what is recorded in your own reliable books.

Sheikh: What you say is of course true, but Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha was only a human being; she was not infallible. Having been misguided she committed a fault. It was because of her simplicity that she fell into the trap of two prominent companions, but later she repented for her revolt. Allah excused her for that.

Well-Wisher: First, you have admitted that some of the prominent companions were sinners, although they were among those who were present "under the tree" and at Bai'atu'l-Rizwan. On previous nights you argued that the Sahaba (companions) were like stars, and should we follow any of them, we would be rightly guided.

You now admit that this is not true. Second, you have said that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha repented of her action. It is only a hollow claim. While the revolt, battle and the slaughter of the Muslims are unanimously accepted, there is no evidence for her repentance.

Of course, it is a fact that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha was restless. She committed many foolish mistakes. But you claim that she repented of her fault and, being ashamed, confined herself to her house. But if this were true, why did she treat the body of the grandson of the Holy Prophet so shamefully?

We have discussed how she vexed the Holy Prophet and how she subsequently went into battle mounted on a camel to fight against his successor. But later, this time mounted on a mule she stopped the corpse of the elder grandson of the Holy Prophet from moving ahead for burial near the Holy Prophet.

Your own eminent ulama’ and historians, including Yusuf Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira Khawasu'l-Umma, p.122; Allama Mas'udi, author of Muruju'z-Dhahab, in Isbatu'l-Wasiyya, p.136; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. IV, p.18, reporting from Abu'l-Faraj and Yahya Ibn Hasan, author of Kitabu'n-Nasab; Muhammad Khwawind Shah in his Rauzatu's-Safa, and many others have written that when the corpse of Imam Hasan was being transported to Medina, A’ysha, mounted on a mule and accompanied by a group of the Bani Umayya and their slaves, stopped the group with Imam Hasan's body.

They said that they would not let Imam Hasan be buried by the side of the Holy Prophet. According to the report of Mas'udi, Ibn Abbas said: "It is strange of you, A’ysha! Was not the Day of Jamal, that is, your entering the battlefield mounted on a camel, sufficient for you? Now should the people also keep in memory the Day of Baghl (mule)?

Mounted on a mule, you have stopped the bier of the son of the Holy Prophet. One day mounted on a camel, another mounted on a mule, you have torn asunder the modesty of the Holy Prophet of Allah. Are you determined to destroy the Light of Allah? But surely Allah perfects His light however unpleasant it is to the polytheists; verily, we are Allah's and to Him shall we return."

Some people have written that Ibn Abbas said to her: "One time you mounted a camel and one time a mule. If you live longer, you will also mount an elephant (that is you will fight against Allah)! Though out of one-eighth you have one-ninth share, yet you took possession of the whole."

The Bani Hashim drew their swords and intended to drive them away. But Imam Husain intervened and said that his brother had told him that he did not want a drop of blood to be spilled because of his funeral procession. Accordingly, the corpse was taken back from there and buried in Baqi' (a cemetery in Medina still visited by pilgrims today).

If A’ysha repented of her revolt against Amiru'l-Mu'minin why did she perform a prostration of thanks when she heard the news of the Holy Imam's martyrdom? Abu'l-Faraj Ispahani, author of Aghani, writing about the Holy Imam in his Maqatilu't-Talibin, says: "When A’ysha heard the news of the martyrdom of Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali, she offered a prostration (of thanks)."

Later however, she asked the informant who had killed ‘Ali. She was told that it was Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim of the Bani Murad clan. Instantly she recited the following couplet: "If ‘Ali is away from me, the news of his death was brought by a slave, who may not have dust in his mouth."

Zainab, daughter of Umm Salma, was present at that time. She asked A’ysha if it was proper for her to express her jubilation and utter such words about ‘Ali. It was a bad thing. A’ysha replied that she was not in her senses and that she uttered those words through forgetfulness. "If such a thing appears in me again and I repeat those things, you may remind me, so that I may refrain from doing that."

These facts clearly show that A’ysha did not repent later in life as you have claimed.

At this time I recall another thing. You people object to the Shi’as because they criticize Caliph Uthman for his faults, faults which your own ulama’ have recorded in their books.

Accordingly, you should not look with favor on Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha either because ulama’ and historians, like Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p.77; Mas'udi in his Kitab al-Akhiru'z-Zaman and Ausat; Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira Khawasu'l-umma, p.36; Ibn Jarir, Ibn Asakir, and others have written that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha always spoke ill of Uthman, so much so that she called out:

"Kill Na'thal (the old dotard)! May Allah kill him, as he has become an infidel?" But as soon as Uthman was killed, she, because of her opposition to ‘Ali, began to say: "Uthman has been killed as an oppressed one. By Allah, I will avenge his death. So rise up and help me."

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes, "Certainly A’ysha was the greatest enemy of Uthman. So much so that she hung the garment of the Holy Prophet in her house and used to tell the people who came there: 'This is the garment of the Holy Prophet of Allah. It has not yet become old, but Uthman has made the Holy Prophet's Sunna old and worn out.'"

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes that, when A’ysha heard in Mecca the news of Uthman's murder, she said, "May Allah reject him from His mercy. He committed bad actions. And Allah does not oppress His subjects." That is, if He chastises anyone, it is because of his sinful actions.

You hear these remarks from A’ysha about Uthman without any proof and yet you take no notice of it. But if the same words are used by Shi’as, you immediately call them infidels.

We should take an impartial view of things. It is an established fact that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha bitterly opposed Imam Amiru'l-Mu'minin. When she heard that the Muslims had sworn allegiance to the Holy Imam she said: "The falling of the skies on the earth is better than the establishment of ‘Ali's caliphate. Uthman has been slain as an oppressed one."

Sheikh: These inconsistencies of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha have of course been generally reported, but two things are accepted and proved. First, that she had been deceived and that for a brief time she was not mindful of the vicegerency of ‘Ali. She herself said that she had forgotten it and only remembered it at Basra. Second, she repented for her action. Certainly Allah, having forgiven her, will give her a high place in Paradise.

Well-Wisher: I will not repeat what I have already said on the question of repentance. The blood of those Muslims who were killed for no fault, the disgrace and insults they were subjected to, and the plundering of their property will not go unquestioned. It is true that at the place of forgiveness, Allah is most merciful, but at the place of chastisement He is most strict. Apart from this, she herself admitted until her death that she was responsible for all those odious events.

As your own ulama’ have reported, she stipulated in her will that she could not be buried by the side of the Holy Prophet. She knew that she had sponsored many of the disturbances after him. Hakim in his Mustadrak; Ibn Qutayba in his Ma'arif, Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Zarandi in his Kitab al-A'lam bi siratu'n-Nabi and Ibnu'l-Bayya Nishapuri and others have reported that A’ysha exhorted Abdullah ibn Zubair in these words: "Bury me beside my sisters in Baqi. I brought about innovations and novelties after the Holy Prophet of Allah."

You said she recollected the virtues of ‘Ali at Basra and had forgotten what the Holy Prophet had forbidden her to do. This is not true. You should consult the authentic books of your own prominent ulama’. For example, refer to Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p.77, by Ibn Abi'l- Hadid.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid reports from the Ta'rikh al-Abi Makhnaf Lut Ibn Yahya Azadi that Umm Salma also was present in Mecca when she heard that A’ysha intended to take vengeance for the murder of Uthman and was going to Basra. She was shocked at this and began proclaiming the merits of ‘Ali in all congregations. A’ysha went to Umm Salma in order to win her over to her point of view before leaving for Basra.

Umm Salma said to her, "Until yesterday you were abusing Uthman and calling him a stupid dotard, and now you have turned against ‘Ali to avenge Uthman's murder. Are you not aware of ‘Ali's virtues? If you have forgotten them, I would recall them to you."

"Remember the day, when I came to your room along with the Holy Prophet of Allah? Then ‘Ali came in and began talking privately with the Holy Prophet. When the private talk continued for some time, you got up to scold the Holy Prophet. I dissuaded you from doing that, but you did not pay any attention to my advice. You said to ‘Ali in anger, 'Of every nine days, one is for me, and on that day too you come in and keep him engaged in talking.'

At this the Holy Prophet became so indignant with you that his face became red and he said, 'Get back! I swear by Allah that whoever has any hostility towards ‘Ali, whether he belongs to my house or otherwise, is excluded from Iman (belief).' Then, being ashamed, you turned back."

A’ysha said, "Yes, I remember it."

Umm Salma said: "You may remember that one day you were washing the head of the Holy Prophet, and I was preparing 'hais' (a kind of food). The Holy Prophet raised his head and said: 'Who among you is that sinner who will mount the camel, and at whom the dogs of Haw'ab bark, and who will fall headlong from the Bridge of Sirat?' I then left the 'hais' and said, 'O Holy Prophet of Allah! I seek refuge of Allah and His Holy Prophet from such an action. After this the Holy Prophet, striking you in your back said, 'Eschew this; it is you who will do these deeds.'"

A’ysha said, "Yes, I remember it."

Umm Salma further said, "I remind you that on one of the journeys you and I were with the Holy Prophet. One day ‘Ali was mending the shoes of the Holy Prophet, and we two were sitting in the shade of a tree. It so happened that your father Abu Bakr and ‘Umar came, and sought permission. You and I went behind the screen. They sat down and after talking for a while said, 'O Holy Prophet of Allah! We do not know the value of your companionship. So we ask you to let us know who will be your successor and caliph, so that after you he may be our guide.'

The Holy Prophet said to them: 'I know his place, rank, and position, but if I introduce him directly, you will reject him as the Bani Israel rejected Aaron.' They both were silent and soon left. After they left we came out. I said to the Holy Prophet, 'Who will be your caliph for them?' The Holy Prophet said, 'He is mending my shoes.' We saw that there was no one except ‘Ali. Then I said, 'O Holy Prophet of Allah! I did not find anybody except ‘Ali.' He said, 'The same ‘Ali is my caliph.'"

A’ysha said, "Yes, I remember it."

Umm Salma then said: "Since you know these hadith, where are you going?" She replied: "I am going to make peace among the people."

It is clear, therefore, that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha had not been merely deceived by others. She herself caused huge problems and, knowing all these things, she deliberately rose in rebellion even though Umm Salma reminded her of the hadith of the Holy Prophet. Even after admitting the rank and position of Amiru'l-Mu'minin, she left for Basra and created a violent tumult, which resulted in the killing of many Muslims.

The hadith of mending shoes is the greatest proof for the Imamate and caliphate of ‘Ali.

The Shi’as make searching inquiries into the affairs of the past 1400 years. With knowledge of the verses of the Qur'an and the authentic books of the ulama’ of both sects, they draw fair conclusions. Accordingly, we believe that, although historically ‘Ali was given the fourth place, this apparently inferior position does not affect his superiority nor belittle the importance of the hadith that prove his rightful place as the Prophet's successor.

We also admit that it is a recorded fact of history that Abu Bakr (through political devices) was nominated caliph in the Saqifa in the absence of ‘Ali, the Bani Hashim, and other prominent Companions, in spite of the opposition of the Khazraj clan of the Ansars. After that it was through personal dictatorship that ‘Umar and Uthman occupied the seat of the caliphate.

But there is a difference. These men were caliphs of the Community; their associates made them caliphs. On the other hand Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali was the caliph of the Holy Prophet and was ordained by Allah and the Holy Prophet to be the vicegerent.

Sheikh: This is unkind of you. There was no difference between them. The very people who unanimously decided to entrust the caliphate to the three caliphs, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman also entrusted it to ‘Ali.

Well-Wisher: There were many clear differences in the manner of the appointments of the caliphs. First, you referred to the Ijma.' (Unanimous decision). It is unnecessary to repeat my point. I have proved the baselessness of the issue of Ijma' in the previous nights. There was in fact no unanimous decision about the caliphate of any one of them.

Second, if you rely on consensus as the basis of the caliphate and consider it permissible from the side of Allah and the Holy Prophet then whenever a caliph died, the whole Community should have gathered together to appoint a caliph. Whoever would have been unanimously elected would have been the caliph of the people (of course not of the Holy Prophet of Allah). And this procedure should have been followed in all ages.

You must, however, acknowledge that such an Ijma or consensus has never been held. Even the incomplete consensus for which the Bani Hashim and the Ansar were not present was not held for any one except Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa. The caliphate of ‘Umar, according to the opinion of all historians and traditionists of Islam, was based on the solitary verdict of Abu Bakr Ibn Qahafa.

If consensus were a requirement for the appointment of a caliph, why was it not held for entrusting the caliphate to ‘Umar and why was consensus of opinion not obtained thereon?

Sheikh: It is obvious that when Abu Bakr was made the caliph through consensus, the verdict of the caliph for the appointment of his successor was quite valid. There was no need for calling another consensus. Rather, the verdict of every caliph for the appointment of the caliph after him was basically sound and sufficient. This right is vested in the caliph that he might appoint a caliph after him so that the people might not be thrown into confusion and perplexity.

Accordingly, when the acknowledged caliph, Abu Bakr, appointed through general agreement, nominated ‘Umar as the next caliph, the latter became the rightful caliph of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: You believe that the acknowledged caliph has the right to nominate his successor. It is his responsibility not to leave the Community confused and unguided, and his decision is sufficient for the appointment of the caliph. But if you believe this, why do you deprive the Holy Prophet of this right?

And why do you disregard all those clear indications which the Holy Prophet explicitly and repeatedly gave on different occasions, naming ‘Ali as his successor, and which are all present in your authentic books. You simply sidetrack the issue and advance irrelevant interpretations just as Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has rejected the hadith of Umm Salma on ridiculous grounds.

Moreover on what basis can you claim that the first caliph, who was appointed by means of consensus, had the right to nominate his successor? Did the Holy Prophet give any such instruction? No. You also claim that when the first caliph secured his appointment through consensus, there was no need for the appointment of other of the caliphs through ijma. The same caliphs had the authority from the Community to nominate the caliph after them.

If that were so, why was that principle adopted for the caliphate of ‘Umar alone? For the caliphate of Uthman this principle was not followed. Instead of nominating a caliph after him, ‘Umar left the question to be decided by a consultative body of six members. I do not know what you consider the principle on which the selection of a caliph is based. You know that if there are basic differences in the arguments, the real issue becomes void.

If your position is that the basis of the caliphate is consensus and the entire Community should unanimously make the decision (not to mention the fact that such a consensus was not held for the caliphate of Abu Bakr) why then was such a consensus not held for the caliphate of ‘Umar?

If you consider that consensus was necessary only for the first caliphate, and for the appointment of the future caliphs the verdict of the elected caliph was sufficient, then why was this principle not followed in the case of Uthman? Why did Caliph ‘Umar abandon the principle enunciated by Abu Bakr?

Why did he leave the selection of the caliph to a Majlis al-Shura (a consultative committee)? Caliph ‘Umar arbitrarily nominated the committee though it should have been the representative body of the community (so that there might be some slight representation of the views of the majority).

The most surprising thing is that the rights of all other members of the committee were made subservient to Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Auf. We do not know what the basis of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Auf's selection was. Was it religion, reputation, knowledge, or performance? We can only note that he was a near relation of Uthman and would not support any one else except him. It was decided that what Abdu'r-Rahman said was right, and when he swore allegiance to somebody, all others must follow him.

When we consider the matter carefully we find that it was a dictatorial order issued under the guise of Shura (consultation). Even today we see that the principles of democracy are completely contrary to it. But the Holy Prophet repeatedly said, "‘Ali revolves round the truth and truth revolves around ‘Ali." Also the Holy Prophet said:

"‘Ali is the 'Faruq' (Discriminator) of this Community and draws a distinction between right and wrong." Hakim in his Mustadrak, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim in Hilya; Tabrani in Ausat; Ibn Asakir in Ta'rikh; Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nuzra; Hamwaini in Fara'id; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha and Suyuti in Durru'l-Mansur narrate from Ibn Abbas, Salman, Abu Dharr and Hudhaifa that the Holy Prophet said, "Soon after me a disturbance will take place.

On that occasion it will be necessary for you to attach yourselves to ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib since he is the first man who will clasp hands with me on the Day of Judgement. He is the most truthful one and is the Faruq of his Community; he draws a distinction between right and wrong, and he is the chief of the believers."

According to a hadith from Ammar Yasir (to which I have referred earlier with full details of its sources) the Holy Prophet said: "If all the people go one way and ‘Ali goes the other, you should follow ‘Ali and leave all the others. O Ammar! ‘Ali will not misguide you and will not lead you to destruction O Ammar! Obedience to ‘Ali is obedience to me, and obedience to me is obedience to Allah."

Even then, Caliph ‘Umar, defying the instructions of the Holy Prophet, makes ‘Ali subordinate to Abdu'r-Rahman in the Shura. Is that authority justified which repudiates the distinguished Companions? Respected men! Be fair! Study the historical accounts of this period, such as Isti'ab, Isaba and Hilyatu'l-Auliya. Then compare ‘Ali with Abdu'r-Rahman, and see whether he deserved to have the right of veto or Amiru'l-Mu'minin. You will find that it was through political manipulation that ‘Ali's right was usurped.

Moreover, if the method of selection adopted by Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab was worth following, that is, if the Majlis al-Shura was necessary for the appointment of the caliph, why was it not done when Amiru'l-Mu'minin was made caliph?

It is strange that for the caliphate of the four caliphs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman, and ‘Ali) four different methods were adopted. Now which of those methods was basically right and which one was void? If you say that all four methods were justified, then you must admit that you have no fundamental principle for the establishment of the caliphate.

Sheikh: Perhaps your statements are correct. You say we should deeply ponder this question. We find that the caliphate of ‘Ali is also of a dubious nature since the kind of consensus, which appointed the previous caliphs, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Uthman also elected ‘Ali caliph.

Well-Wisher: What you say might be considered tenable were it not for the statement of the Holy Prophet. In fact the caliphate of ‘Ali did not depend upon the ijma'(consensus) of the Community. It was ordained by Allah.

The Holy Imam assumed the caliphate by way of taking back his right. If somebody's right has been usurped, he may take it back whenever he gets the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, when there were no obstructions and the atmosphere demanded it, the Holy Imam secured his right.

If you have forgotten the points we have made previously, you may consult the newspapers, which reported information we presented regarding this issue. We have proved that ‘Ali's occupying the caliphate was based on Qur'anic verses and on the hadith of the Holy Prophet.

You cannot cite a single hadith accepted by both sects in which the Holy Prophet said that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or Uthman were his successors. Of course, apart from hadith in Shi’as books, there are a large number of hadith from the Holy Prophet recorded in your own authentic books, which show that the Holy Prophet expressly appointed ‘Ali as his successor.

Sheikh: There are also hadith which show that the Holy Prophet said that Abu Bakr was his caliph.

Well-Wisher: Apparently you have forgotten my argument of previous nights which disproves the acceptability of those hadith. I will, however, reply again tonight. Sheikh Mujaddidu'din Firuzabadi, the author of Qamusu'l-Lughat says in his Kitab al-Safaru's-Sa'adat: "What ever has been said in praise of Abu Bakr is based on such fictitious stories that common sense does not admit them as true."

If you properly scrutinize the problem of the caliphate, you will find that there was actually no consensus for any of the four major caliphs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman and ‘Ali) or for any of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs. The whole Community was never assembled nor were representatives of the entire community gathered together to cast their vote. But, comparatively speaking, we find that ‘Ali's caliphate was supported by what was very close to consensus.

Your own historians and ulama’ write that for the caliphate of Abu Bakr at first only ‘Umar and Abu Ubaida Jarra, the grave digger, were present. Later some of the Aus clan swore allegiance to him only because they were opposed to the Khazraj clan which had nominated Sa'd Ibn Ubaida as a candidate. Later on others through intimidation, (as I have stated in detail earlier) and another group prompted by political considerations swore allegiance to Abu Bakr. The Ansars, who followed Sa'd Ibn Ubaida, did not acknowledge the caliphate till the last moment.

Then the caliphate of ‘Umar was founded only on Abu Bakr's proposal, which had nothing to do with consensus. Uthman subsequently became caliph through the decision of the Majlis al-Shura (consultative committee) which had been arbitrarily formed by Caliph ‘Umar.

At the time of ‘Ali's caliphate a majority of the representatives of most of the Islamic countries, who by chance had come to Medina to seek redress of grievances, insisted on ‘Ali being the caliph.

Nawab: Did the representatives of the Islamic countries gather in Medina for the purpose of electing their caliph?

Well-Wisher: No. Caliph Uthman was still caliph. Representatives of most of the major Muslim tribes and clans assembled in Medina to complain of the atrocities of the Umayyad governors, officers, and other notables of the court, like Marwan. The result of this consensus was that Uthman, who persisted in his oppressive policies, was murdered.

It was after this affair that the people of Medina approached ‘Ali and with insistent entreaties brought him to the mosque, where all the people swore allegiance to him. Such an open consensus had not been held for any of the caliphate of any of the first three caliphs. The people of Medina and the leaders of the nations swore allegiance to a particular person and acknowledged him as their caliph.

But despite this consensus held for Amiru'l-Mu'minin, we do not consider it the basis of his caliphate. To validate his caliphate we rely only on the Holy Qur'an and the ordinances of the Holy Prophet. It was a practice of the Prophets that they themselves, in accordance with the command of Allah, appointed their successor and caliph.

You said that there was no difference between Amiru'l-Mu'minin and other caliphs. And yet there are many indications that there was a vast difference between ‘Ali and other caliphs.

The first characteristic of Amiru'l-Mu'minin which made him distinctly superior to other caliphs was that he was appointed the Prophet's successor by Allah and His Prophet. All others were appointed by small groups of people. Obviously the caliph appointed by Allah and His Holy Prophet must be superior to those who have been appointed by the people. Of course the most distinguishing characteristic of Amiru'l-Mu'minin was the superiority of his knowledge, virtue, and piety.

All the ulama’ of the community (except a few Kharijis, Nasibis, and followers of Abu Bakr) are unanimous in their view that, after the Holy Prophet, ‘Ali surpassed all others in knowledge, virtue, justice, nobility, and piety.

In support of this fact, I have previously quoted a number of hadith and verses from the Holy Qur'an. Now I have recalled still another hadith regarding this point.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in Musnad, Abu'l-Mu'ayyid Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad Khawarizmi in the fourth chapter of the Manaqib; Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Hafiz Abu Bakr Baihaqi Shafi'i in his Sunan, and many others have narrated from the Holy Prophet in slightly different words and versions that he said: "‘Ali among you is the most learned scholar, the most virtuous man, and the best judge. He who rejects his statement, action, or opinion, really rejects me. He who rejects me, rejects Allah, and he is within the confines of polytheism."

Moreover, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, who is one of your eminent ulama’, has written in many places in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha that the superiority of Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali was the belief of many companions and followers. The Sheikhs (the chiefs) of Baghdad also acknowledged it.

Would you kindly let me know what you consider to be the virtues in man which make him superior to others?

Sheikh: In fact there are many virtues and praiseworthy qualities which can claim superiority to others, but in my opinion the most meritorious qualities after believing in Allah and the Holy Prophet are these: (1) pure ancestry (2) knowledge, and (3) piety.

Well-Wisher: Allah bless you! I will confine my discussion to these three points.

Of course every companion, whether he was the caliph or not, had some distinctive quality. But those who possessed all these virtues were definitely superior to all others. If I prove that in these three characteristics it was Amiru'l-Mu'minin who excelled all others, then you must admit this Holy man was the worthiest claimant for the caliphate. And if he was deprived of the caliphate, it was because of political contrivances.

In the matter of ancestry with the exception of the Holy Prophet, no man can compare with ‘Ali. Even some of the fanatical ulama’ of your sect, like Ala'u'd-din Mulla ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad Ushji, Abu Uthman Amr Ibn Bahr Jahiz Nasibi, and Sa'idu'd-din Mas'ud Ibn ‘Umar Taftazani have said: "We are in awe at the words of ‘Ali who said, 'We are the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet. No one can bear comparison to us."

Also, in the second sermon of Nahju'l-Balagha, the Holy Imam after accepting the caliphate said, "No person of this Community can bear comparison with the family of Muhammad. How can those who have received blessings, knowledge, and kindness from them equal them? They are the foundation of religion and the pillars of belief.

Those who diverge from the right path turn to them, and those who lag behind, step forward to attach themselves to them. They alone have the exclusive right of vicegerency and Imamate. It was for them alone that the Holy Prophet made his will. They were his rightful inheritors. Now the right has returned to its legitimate claimant and has again reached the place from which it had been removed."

These statements of Amiru'l-Mu'minin about his claim for the caliphate are the best proof for his right to the caliphate.

But these words were not uttered by Amiru'l-Mu'minin alone. Even his opponents have acknowledged the same thing. I have pointed out on a previous night that Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamdani reports in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba Mawadda 7, from Abi Wa'il, who reports that Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar said: "In pointing out the companions of the Holy Prophet, we mentioned the names of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Uthman. A man asked where ‘Ali’s name was. We said, ‘Ali belongs to the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet, and no one can bear comparison with him; he is with the Holy Prophet of Allah in the same rank.'"

Also he narrates from Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Kurgi Baghdadi, who said that Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Hanbal (the Imam of the Hanbalites) about the Companions who were worthy of praise, he named Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Uthman. He then asked what he thought about ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said, "He belongs to the Ahlul Bayt. The others cannot be compared to him."

As for the ancestry of ‘Ali, it has two aspects: one of light and one of the body. So in this respect ‘Ali had a unique position after the Holy Prophet of Allah.

From the point of view of light, Amiru'l-Mu'minin occupied the foremost place, as many of your illustrious ulama’ point out. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamdani Faqih Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib and Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul Fi Manaqib al-alu'r-Rasul narrate from the Holy Prophet that he said, "I and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib both were a single light in the presence of Allah 14,000 years before the creation of Adam. When Allah created Adam, he deposited that light in Adam's loins. We remained together as one light until we separated in Abu'l-Muttalib's loins. Then I was endowed with Prophethood and ‘Ali with the caliphate."

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamdani Faqih Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda VII, mentions this point. "‘Ali and the Holy Prophet are from one Light. ‘Ali was endowed with such qualities as were not given to any one else in the entire world."

Among hadith which have been recorded in this Mawadda, there is a report from the third Caliph, Uthman Ibn Affan, who said that the Holy Prophet said, "I and ‘Ali were created from one light 4,000 years before the creation of Adam. When Allah created Adam, He deposited that light into Adam's loins. We remained as one light until we were separated in Abdu'l-Muttalib's loins. Then I was endowed with prophethood and ‘Ali with vicegerency."

In another hadith he writes that the Holy Prophet, addressing ‘Ali, said: "So prophethood and messengership came to me. Vicegerency and the Imamate came to you, ‘Ali."

The same hadith has been narrated by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.II, p.450 (printed in Egypt) from the author of Kitab al-Firdaus. Also Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, part I, reports from Jam'u'l-Fawa'id, Manaqib of Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i, Firdaus of Dailami, Fara'idu's-Simtain of Hamwaini and Manaqib of Khawarizmi, with slight difference in wording but not in purport, that the Holy Prophet Muhammad and ‘Ali were created from light thousands of years before the creation of the universe and that both of them were one light until they were separated from each other in the loins of Abdu'l-Muttalib.

One part was placed in the loins of Abdullah and through it was born the Holy Prophet. The other part was placed in the loins of Abu Talib and through it was born ‘Ali. Muhammad was selected for prophethood and ‘Ali for vicegerency, as was disclosed by the Holy Prophet himself.

Abu'l-Mu'ayyid Mu'affaq Ibn Ahmad Khawarizmi and many others have reported from reliable sources that the Holy Prophet said: "I and ‘Ali were born of one light. We remained together until we reached the loins of Abu Talib where we were separated from each other."

So far as ‘Ali's physical creation was concerned, he was evidently of the most exalted rank from both his maternal and paternal side. All of his forefathers back to Adam himself were worshipers of Allah. This light never settled in an impure loins or womb. None of the other companions can make such a claim. The lineage of ‘Ali is as follows:

Sheikh: You have said that all the ancestors of ‘Ali were monotheists. I think you are mistaken. Some of his ancestors were idol worshipers. For instance Abraham Khalilullah's father, Azar, worshipped idols. The Holy Qur'an clearly says "And when Abraham said to his father, Azar: 'Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error.'"

Well-Wisher: You repeat what your elders have said although you know that the scholars of genealogy unanimously agree that Abraham's father was Tarukh, and not Azar.

Sheikh: But this is ijtihad (reasoning based on your own judgement) in face of divine ordinance. You are putting forward the views of the scholars of genealogy in opposition to the Holy Qur'an, which clearly says that Abraham's father was Azar, who was an idol worshiper.

Well-Wisher: I never argue in opposition to divine law. My aim is to know the real interpretation of the Qur'an. In order to accomplish this, I seek guidance from those who are equal to the Holy Qur'an as sources of guidance, the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet. The word in the Holy verse has been used in the general sense because in the general sense even the uncle and the mother's husband are also called "father."

There are two views about Azar. One is that he was Abraham's uncle and the second is that in addition to being his uncle, after the death of Abraham's father, Tarukh, he married Abraham's mother. Hence Abraham used to address him as his father, since he was his uncle as well as his mother's husband.

Sheikh: We cannot ignore the explicit meaning of the Holy Qur'an, unless we find its other meaning in the Qur'an itself, clearly indicating that uncle or mother's husband are also called 'father'. If you fail to produce such evidence (and certainly you will fail), your argument will be unacceptable.

Well-Wisher: There are instances in the Holy Qur'an where words have been used in their general sense. For example, verse 133 of chapter II, Baqara (The Cow) of the Holy Qur'an supports my point. It records the questions and answers of the Prophet Jacob with his sons at the time of his death. It says:

"When he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: we will serve your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Isma'il and Isaac, the one God only, and to Him do we submit." (2:133)

In this verse the proof of my claim is the word Isma'il. According to the Holy Qur'an, Jacob's father was Isaac and Isma'il was his uncle, but, according to the general practice, he used to call him his father. Since the sons of Jacob also according to the general practice, called their uncle their father, they used the same word in reply to his father. God reported their question and answer as it was.

Similarly, Abraham also used to call his uncle and his mother's husband, 'father', although, according to strong evidence of historical and genealogical accounts, it is an acknowledged fact that Abraham's father was not Azar, but Tarukh.

The second proof of the fact that the Holy Prophet's ancestors were not polytheists and infidels is verse 219 of Chapter 26 of Shu'ara (The Poets) which says,

"And your turning over and over among those who prostrate themselves to Allah." (26:219)

Concerning the meaning of this Holy verse Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, vol.II, and many others of your ulama’ have narrated from Ibn Abbas, who said, "Allah transferred particles of the being of the Holy Prophet from Adam's loins to successive prophets, one after the other, all of whom were monotheists, until He made him appear from his father's loins through nika (lawful wedlock) and not unlawfully."

There is also a well known hadith which all of your ulama’ have narrated. Even Imam Tha'labi, who is called the Imam of traditionists, writes in his commentary and Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, vol. II, narrates from Ibn Abbas, that the Holy Prophet said: "Allah sent me to the earth in the loins of Adam and transferred me to the loins of Abraham. He continued transferring me from the distinguished and exalted loins to pure wombs until He created me from my father and mother, who never met unlawfully."

In another hadith he is reported to have said, "Allah never mixed in me any base element of ignorance."

In the same chapter Sulayman Balkhi reports from Ibkaru'l-Afkar of Sheikh Salahu'd-din Ibn Zainu'd-din Ibn Ahmad known as Ibnu's-Sala Halbi and from Sharh al-Kibrit al-Ahmar of Sheikh Abdu'l-Qadir narrating from Ala'u'd-Dowlat Semnani, a detailed hadith from Jabir Ibn Abdullah that the Holy Prophet was asked about what Allah created first. He answered the question in detail, which I cannot relate at this time. Towards the end of the hadith the Holy Prophet said:

"Similarly, Allah continued transferring my light from pure side to pure side, until He deposited me in my father, Abdullah Ibn Abdu'l-Muttalib. From there He brought me to the womb of my mother, Amina. Then He caused me to appear in this world and conferred upon me the title of Sayidu'l-Mursalin (the chief of the Messengers) and Khatamu'n-Nabiyyin (the Seal of the Prophets)."

The Holy Prophet's statement that he continued to be transferred from pure one to pure one proves that none of his forefathers was an infidel. According to the Holy Qur'an, which says:

"Verily, the polytheists are polluted ones," (9:28)

every infidel and polytheist is polluted. He said that he was transferred from pure wombs to pure wombs. Since idol worshipers are not pure, it follows that none of his forefathers was an idol worshiper.

In the same chapter of Yanabiu'l-Mawadda a hadith from Ibn Abbas is reported via Kabir that the Holy Prophet said: "I was not born through the unlawful wedlock of the days of ignorance. I was born through the Islamic ways of Nika."

Have you not read sermon 105 of Nahju'l-Balagha? The Commander of the Faithful says about the forefathers of the Holy Prophet: "Allah provided for them (i.e., the Prophets) the best place (the loins of their forefathers) and gave them the best placements (the Holy wombs of their mothers).

He transferred them from distinguished and respectable loins to pure wombs. When the father of any of them passed away, his son succeeded him with the religion of Allah, until Allah Almighty made Muhammad His Prophet and Messenger. So He made the source of the Holy Prophet's creation the most exalted one. The Holy Prophet's lineage included His Prophets who were of high rank."

In short, the ancestors of the Holy Prophet, back to the Prophet Adam, were all believers and monotheists. It is quite obvious that the people of the Ahlul Bayt (the Progeny) of the Holy Prophet knew more about the status of their forefathers than others knew.

When it is proved that the ancestors of the Holy Prophet were believers and monotheists, it naturally follows that ‘Ali's ancestors were also worshipers of Allah. I have already proved through your own books that Muhammad and ‘Ali were from one light and always remained together in pure loins and wombs until they were separated from each other in the loins of Abdu'l-Muttalib. Every sensible man would admit that such a distinguished personality was the rightful claimant to the caliphate.

Sheikh: I accept the fact that Tarukh was Abraham's father, and you have proved the purity of the Holy Prophet's ancestors. But it is not possible to find such evidence in the case of ‘Ali. Even if we admit that all of his ancestors down to Abdu'l-Muttalib were monotheists, his father, Abu Talib, certainly left this world an infidel.

Well-Wisher: I admit that there are differing opinions among the community concerning Abu Talib's faith. But we should say, "O Allah! Curse the first tyrant who showed injustice to Muhammad and curse his descendants. Allah's curse be on him who fabricated hadith with the result that the Nasibis and Kharijis began to claim that Abu Talib left this world an unbeliever.

The Shi’as ulama’ in general and all the members of the entire family of the Holy Prophet believe in the faith of Abu Talib. Also, many of your scholars and fair minded ulama’, like Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Jalalu'd-din Suyuti, Abu'l-Qasim Balkhi, Abu Ja'far Askafi, their teachers from the Mu'tazali sect, and Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani Faqih Shafi'i - all agree that Abu Talib was a Muslim.

The Shi’as believe that Abu Talib, from the very beginning, believed in the Holy Prophet. The Shi’as, following the Holy Ahlul Bayt, acknowledge with one accord "Abu Talib never worshipped an idol; he was one of the successors of Abraham."

The same view has also been expressed in the authentic books of your own ulama’. For instance, Ibn Athir says in his Jam'u'l-usul: "According to the Holy Ahlul Bayt among all the uncles of the Holy Prophet, only Hamza, Abbas, and Abu Talib accepted Islam.

The common agreement of the Holy Ahlul Bayt regarding a point must be considered decisive. The Hadith al-Thaqalain and other hadith which I have referred to on previous nights clearly prove that the Holy Prophet made clear statements regarding his family's infallibility. They were the parallels of the Holy Qur'an and one of the Thaqalain (two weighty things) which the Prophet left as sources of infallible guidance for his people. It is necessary for all Muslims to adhere to them so that they may not be led astray.

Second, according to the saying "The people of the house know better about family matters," this exalted family knew more about the belief of their forefathers than Mughira Ibn Sha'ba, the Bani Umayya, the Kharijis and Nasibis, or other uninformed people.

It is really surprising that your ulama’ do not accept statements of the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet, including the chief of the pious, the Commander of the Faithful, to whose veracity and truthfulness Allah and the Holy Prophet testified. All say that Abu Talib died a believer. You do not believe that, but you accept the word of the confirmed liar and sinner, Mughira, some Amawis, Kharijis, and Nasibis.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, who is one of your accredited ulama’, says in his Shahr al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.III, p.310: "There is a difference of opinion concerning the Islam of Abu Talib. The Imamiyya sect and most of the Zaidiyyas say that he left this world a Muslim. Apart from the entire Shi’as ulama’, some of our own chief ulama’, like Abu'l-Qasim Balkhi and Abu Ja'far Askafi hold the view that Abu Talib embraced Islam, but he did not reveal his belief so that he might give full support to the Holy Prophet and, because of his (Abu Talib's) influence, the opponents might not block the Holy Prophet's way."

Sheikh: Apparently you are not familiar with the "Hadith of Zuhzah" which says: "Abu Talib is in the fire of Hell."

Well-Wisher: This is a fabricated hadith invented during the period of Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan by some of the enemies of the Holy Prophet. Later the Bani Umayya and their followers continued their efforts to fabricate hadith against ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib and circulated them among the people.

They did not allow Abu Talib's belief to become well known like that of Hamza and Abbas. The forger of Hadith Zuhza was one Mughira, who was a sinner and an enemy of the Commander of the Faithful.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.III, pp 159-163; Mas'udi in Muruju'z-Dhahab and other ulama’ write that Mughira committed fornication in Basra. When his witnesses were produced before Caliph ‘Umar, three of them testified against him, but the fourth was tutored to say such things as made his evidence unacceptable. Accordingly, the three other witnesses had to suffer the prescribed penalty, and Mughira was acquitted.

The author of this hadith, however, was a fornicator and drunkard upon whom the penalty prescribed by religion was about to be inflicted. He invented hadith because of his opposition to the Commander of the Faithful and to flatter Mu'awiya. Mu'awiya and his followers and other Umayyads strengthened this spurious hadith and began testifying that "Abu Talib is in the fire of Hell."

Moreover, those connected with the narration of this hadith like Abdu'l-Malik Ibn ‘Umar, Abdu'l-Aziz Rawandi and Sufyan Thawri, are weak and unacceptable reporters. This fact has been verified by your own eminent commentator and scholar, Zahi, who has expressed this view in his Mizanu'l-I'tidal, vol.II. So how can one rely on a hadith like this, which has been narrated by such notorious liars and weak reporters?

(1) The Holy Prophet says in a hadith (joining his two fingers): "I and the supporter of the orphan are together in Paradise like these two fingers."

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid also has reported this hadith in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.IV, p.312, where he says that it is obvious that the Holy Prophets statement does not mean all supporters of orphans, since most of the supporters of orphans are sinners. So the Holy Prophet meant by it Abu Talib and his distinguished grandfather, Abdu'l-Muttalib, who looked after the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet was known in Mecca as the yatim (orphan) of Abu Talib because after the passing away of Abdu'l-Muttalib, the Prophet, from the age of eight, had been in the care of Abu Talib.

(2) There is a well known hadith which both the Shi’as and Sunni sects have narrated in different ways. Some of them say that the Holy Prophet said: "Gabriel came to me and gave me good news in these words: 'Allah has definitely exempted from the fire the loins through which you appeared, the womb which sustained you, the breasts which suckled you, and the lap which supported you.'"

Mir Sayyid ‘Ali Hamadani in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, and Qazi Shukani in his Hadith al-Qudsi have reported that the Holy Prophet said: "Gabriel came to me and said 'Allah sends greetings to you and says verily He has exempted from the fire the loins which gave you shelter, the womb which sustained your weight, and the lap which supported you.'"

These reports and hadith clearly prove the faith of the Prophet's supporters, namely, Abdu'l-Muttalib, Abu Talib and his wife Fatima Bint Asad, and also the Holy Prophet's father, Abdullah, and mother, Amina Bint Wahhab, and his wet nurse, Halima.

(3) Your great scholar, Izzu'd-din Abdu'l-Hamid Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, composed the following couplets in praise of Abu Talib. They are recorded in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.III, p.318: "Without Abu Talib and his son (‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Islam would have no distinction or strength. Abu Talib protected the Holy Prophet in Mecca and supported him and ‘Ali in Medina. Abda'l-Manaf (Abi Talib) by order of his father Abdu'l-Muttalib continued taking care of the Holy Prophet and ‘Ali and perfected those efforts.

When Abu Talib died through Allah's will, it did not cause any loss because he left his fragrance (‘Ali) as his memory. Abu Talib initiated outstanding services in the way of Allah, and ‘Ali perfected them for the sake of Allah.

Abu Talib's eminence cannot be harmed by the foolish utterances of people, or by the willful suppression of his virtues (by his opponents), just as when a man calls the light of day darkness, the light will not be affected."

(4) Similarly, the couplets Abu Talib himself composed in praise of the Holy Prophet are a clear proof of his faith. Some of these couplets have been recorded by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.III, p.316. Moreover, your prominent ulama’, like Sheikh Abu'l-Qasim Balkhi and Abu Ja'far Askafi, have produced them as evidence for Abu Talib's belief.

Abu Talib wrote: "I seek shelter in Allah from those who rail at us or attribute profanity to us, from the sinner who speaks ill of us, and from the person who associates things in religion from which we are aloof.

I swear by the House of Allah that he lies who says that we shall leave Muhammad, though we have not yet fought against his enemy with the sword and lance.

We will indeed help him until we have crushed his enemy. We will offer such sacrifice that we will forget our wife and children.

His light is such that through the brightness of his face we invoke the shower of Allah's mercy.

He comes to the assistance of orphans; he is the refuge of widows. The helpless people of the Bani Hashim go to him for help and are blessed with all kinds of favors.

I swear by my life that I have a passionate love for Ahmad. I love him like a pure friend.

I found my self fit for sacrifice to him, so I helped him as he is an ornament for the people of the world, a curse for enemies, and a grace for society.

May the Creator of the World support him with His help and reveal His religion, which is the way to Allah, and in which there is not a particle of wrong."

There are some special couplets of Abu Talib which Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.III, p.312, and others have quoted in proof of his belief. In his panegyric, he says:

"These people expect us to fight against Islam with sword and lance; they think that we will kill Muhammad. But our faces have not yet been colored with blood in his help. I swear by the House of Allah that you have told me a lie; you may fall into disaster.

Hatim and Zamzam may fill to the brim with severed heads. Injustice is being done to the Prophet, who has been sent by Allah to guide the people. He has been given the book, which has been revealed by the Lord of the Sky."

Apart from these clear evidences, which prove the faith of Abu Talib, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, v.III, p.315, quotes the following couplets:

"You bear witness to the existence of Allah! Bear witness that verily I follow the religion of the Prophet of Allah, namely, Ahmad. Others may be misled in their religion, but I am one of these who are guided."

Gentlemen! Be fair and tell us if the writer of such couplets can be called an infidel.

Sheikh: These couplets are not acceptable for two reasons. First, there is no continuity of narration about them. Second, it was nowhere seen that Abu Talib acknowledged Islam. Reporting some of his couplets does not conclusively prove that he was a Muslim.

Well-Wisher: Your objection about lack of continuity of narration is strange. Whenever you wish, you accept a lone report to be reliable and when you do not wish, you use the weapon of lack of continuity.

If you reflect for a moment that if these couplets have not been continuously reported by individuals, even so, taken as a whole, they prove that Abu Talib believed in the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet. There are many such things whose continuity of narration is determined in the same way.

For instance, the battles of the Commander of the Faithful and the examples of his bravery also depend upon lone reports. But taken as a whole these reports create the sense of continuity, which gives us the necessary knowledge of his valor. Hatim's generosity and Nushirwan's justice are known in the same way.

Since you are so fond of continuity, please let us know how you would prove that the Hadith of Zuhza has been successively transmitted.

As for your second objection, my reply is quite simple. It is necessary to express one's acknowledgement of the unity of Allah, prophethood, the Day of Resurrection, etc. in prose. But if one composes couplets in which he expresses his belief, it is quite sufficient. When Abu Talib said,"You who believe in Allah! Bear witness that verily I follow the religion of the Prophet of Allah, Ahmad," it had the same effect as if he had said it in prose.

Besides this, he acknowledged his belief at the time of his death in prose as well. Sayyid Muhammad Rasuli Bazranji, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim, and Baihaqi have reported that a party of the chiefs of the Quraish, including Abu Jahl and Abdullah Ibn Abi Umayya, came to Abu Talib when he was dying. At that time the Holy Prophet said to his uncle Abu Talib: "Say that 'there is no god but Allah,' so that I may bear witness to it before Allah."

Instantly Abu Jahl and Abi Umayya said, "Abu Talib! Will you turn away from the creed of Abdu'l-Muttalib?" They repeated these words time and again until he said, "You should know that Abu Talib follows the creed of Abdu'l-Muttalib." The result was that those people went away well pleased. When the signs of death appeared on Abu Talib, his brother Abbas, who was sitting on the edge of his bed, saw that his lips were moving.

When he listened to what he said, he heard him saying: "There is no god but Allah." Abbas said to the Holy Prophet: "Nephew! I swear by Allah that my brother (Abu Talib) has said what you ordered him to say." Since Abbas had not himself embraced Islam at that time, he did not utter those words.

We have proved earlier that the ancestors of the Holy Prophet were all believers in the unity of Allah. You should know that it was expedient for Abu Talib to say that he followed the creed of Abdu'l-Muttalib. He satisfied those people, and in reality he acknowledged his faith in the unity of Allah because Abdu'l-Muttalib followed the creed of the Prophet Abraham.

Moreover, he did utter the words "There is no god but Allah." If you study the historical facts about Abu Talib, you will certainly acknowledge that he was a believer.

On the day of his bi'that (announcement of Prophethood) the Holy Prophet, along with his uncle, Abbas, went to Abu Talib and said to him: "Verily, Allah has ordered me to announce His command; verily, He has made me His Prophet; so how will you treat me?"

Abu Talib was the chief of the Quraish, the Head of the Bani Hashim, and the most veracious man in the eyes of the people of Mecca. He had reared the Holy Prophet. Had he been an infidel, he would have at once opposed him.

And if that had not proven sufficient, since the Holy Prophet had come to him to seek help to propagate his prophethood, Abu Talib seeing that it was against his religion, would have confined the Holy Prophet or at least would have turned him out of his place.

Such a rejection would have hindered the Holy Prophet from his great resolve. Abu Talib's religion (supposing it to be polytheism) would have been saved, and he would have earned the gratitude of his associates. Abu Talib could have rebuked the Holy Prophet as Azar had done to his nephew the Prophet Abraham.

But, on the contrary, when the Holy Prophet sought his help, Abu Talib said: "O my nephew! Proceed with your mission. Verily, you are high in rank, strong in your clan and the most exalted in family lineage. I swear by Allah that the tongue which speaks ill of you will be answered by me with sharp swords. By Allah, the whole Arab world will kneel down before you, as an animal humbles itself before its master."

Moreover, he composed the following verses, referring to the Prophet's mission. These have been recorded by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.III, p. 306, and Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, p. 5:

"I swear by Allah that those people with their partisans will never reach you, till I consign them to their graves.

So you should go on performing your duty. I give you the good news of your success. Make your eyes cool with it.

You have called me to your religion. I believe that you have guided me to the right path; you are surely the truthful one and have ever been trustworthy.

You have brought us a religion which I know is the best of all religions.

If I had no fear of taunt and reproach, you would have found me openly supporting you."

These couplets show that Abu Talib recognized Muhammad to be a messenger of Allah. There are however many other similar couplets which Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, and many other ulama’, have recorded in their books.

Most of your prominent ulama’ have recorded this fact. You might consult Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi's Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.52, in which it is reported from Abu Uthman Amr Ibn Bahr Jahiz that, writing about Abu Talib, he said, "Abu Talib was a supporter of the prophethood and messengership of the Holy Prophet. He wrote many couplets in praise of the Holy Prophet. He was the leader of the Quraish."

This clear evidence proves the sincerity of Abu Talib's faith. Of course the Bani Umayya encouraged people to curse the chief of the monotheists, the Commander of the Faithful, and the grandsons of the Holy Prophet, Hasan and Husain. They also fabricated hadith condemning the Holy imam and forged reports that his father (Abu Talib) died an infidel.

The reporter was the accursed Mughira Ibn Sha'ba, an enemy of ‘Ali and friend of Mu'awiya. The Kharijis and Nasibis propagated the view that Abu Talib was an infidel. The simple people were led to believe that it was a correct view.

It is strange that they consider Abu Sufyan, Mu'awiya, and Yazid (May Allah's curse be upon them) believers and Muslims, even though there are countless indications to the contrary. And yet they attribute infidelity to Abu Talib in spite of clear proofs which show that he was a firm believer.

Sheikh: Is it proper for you to call the Khalu'l-Mu'minin (uncle of the believers), Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan "infidel" and always curse him. Will you let us know what evidence you have that Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan and Yazid were infidels and fit to be cursed. These two distinguished men were among the caliphs. In fact Mu'awiya was both Khalu'l-Mu'minin (uncle of the believers) and also Katib al-Wahi (scribe of revelations).

Well-Wisher: Would you please tell me how Mu'awiya merits the title Khalu'l-Mu'minin (uncles of the believers)?

Sheikh: Since Mu'awiya's sister, Umm Habiba, was the wife of the Holy Prophet and Ummu'l-Mu'minin (mother of believers), her brother Mu'awiya was Khalu'l-Mu'minin.

Well-Wisher: In your opinion was the rank of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha greater or that of Umm Habiba, sister of Mu'awiya?

Sheikh: Although both were Ummu'l-Mu'minin, A’ysha was definitely superior to Umm Habiba.

Well-Wisher: According to your criteria, all brothers of the wives of the Holy Prophet are Khalu'l-Mu'minin. Then why don't you call Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr Khalu'l-Mu'minin? According to you his father was superior to Mu'awiya, and his sister was also superior to Mu'awiya's sister. No, Mu'awiya's being Khalu'l-Mu'minin has no reality.

Abu'l-Faraj Ispahani in his Maqatilu't-Talibin, Ibn Abdu'l-Bar in his Isti'ab, Mas'udi in his Isbatu'l-Wasiyya, and many other ulama’ have reported that Asma Ju'da, by order and promise of Mu'awiya, gave poison to Abu Muhammad Hasan Ibn ‘Ali. Ibn Abdu'l-Bar and Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari have also reported that when Mu'awiya was informed of the demise of the Holy imam, he shouted the takbir ("Allah is Great."). Of course, such a damned person should be called Khalu'l-Mu'minin according to you!

But look at Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, who was brought up by the Commander of the Faithful and was one of the staunchest friends of the Holy Ahlul Bayt!

Addressing this illustrious family he says: "O descendants of Fatima! You are a place of safety for me and my guardian. It is through you that on the Day of Judgement, the significance of my good actions will be greater. Since my love for you is sincere, I do not mind if somebody barks near me."

Although he was the son of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, and the brother of Ummu'l-Mu'minin A’ysha, he was not call Khalu'l-Mu'minin. He was abused and deprived of his father's legacy!

When Amr Ibn As and Mu'awiya Ibn Khadij conquered Egypt, the supply of water was cut off to Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr. When he had nearly died of thirst, he was killed. He was then enclosed in the skin of an ass and the bundle was thrown into a fire. When Mu'awiya learned of this, he was very pleased.

Hearing these facts, you do not question why these damned people treated Abu Bakr's son, Khalu'l-Mu'minin Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr, so cruelly. But when Mu'awiya is cursed, you immediately become angry. So you see the opposition to the progeny of the Holy Prophet, and it continues today.

Since Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr was one of the friends of the descendants of the Holy Prophet, you neither call him Khalu'l-Mu'minin nor regret his murder. Since Mu'awiya was the bitterest enemy of the Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet, you call him Khalu'l-Mu'minin. Allah save us from such fanatical perversity!

Second, Mu'awiya was not the writer of Wahi. He embraced Islam in the tenth year of the Hijra when revelation was complete. In fact he was the scribe who wrote letters. He caused immense trouble for the Holy Prophet. In the eighth year of the Hijra when Mecca was conquered and Abu Sufyan embraced Islam, Mu'awiya wrote many letters to his father railing at him because he had accepted Islam.

When, however, the whole Arabian Peninsula and beyond came under the influence of Islam, Mu'awiya was himself forced to embrace Islam. In doing so he lost all his prestige. Abbas then asked the Holy Prophet to assign Mu'awiya some position so that he might no longer feel humiliated. In view of the recommendation of his uncle, the Holy Prophet appointed him as scribe for the writing of letters.

Third, there are many suras of the Qur'an and hadith proving that he was an infidel and worthy of curses.

Sheikh: I would like very much to hear these suras and hadith.

Well-Wisher: Only a few will be pointed out. If I narrate them all, it would form a complete book. Muslim, in his Sahih, reports Mu'awiya was a scribe of the Holy Prophet. Mada'ini says: "Sa'id Ibn Thabit was the Wahi (revelation) and Mu'awiya used to write the letters of the Holy Prophet to other Arabs."

(1) Please refer to ayat 60 of Sura 17 (Bani Israel). Commentators from your own ulama’, like Tha'labi, Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, and others say that the Holy Prophet saw in a dream that the Bani Umayya, like monkeys, ascended and descended his pulpit.

Thereafter Gabriel brought this Holy ayat:

"And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men. And we did not create the vision which We showed you except as a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur'an as well. And we cause them to fear, but it only adds to their grievous transgression." (17:60)

Allah Almighty has called the Bani Umayya, whose leaders were Abu Sufyan and Mu'awiya, the "cursed tree" in the Holy Qur'an. Mu'awiya, who was a strong limb of this tree, was definitely accursed.

(2) Again Allah Almighty says,

"But if you held command, you would surely make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship. Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes." (47:22-23)

In this verse those who make mischief in the earth and sever the ties of kinship are cursed by Allah. Who was a greater mischief monger than Mu'awiya, whose caliphate was notorious for its evil practices? Besides this, he severed the ties of kinship.

(3) Also Allah says in the Holy Qur'an:

"Surely as for those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the hereafter, and He has prepared them for a chastisement bringing disgrace." (33:57)

Certainly tormenting the Commander of the Faithful and the two grandsons of the Holy Prophet Hasan and Husain as well as Ammar al-Yasir and other distinguished companions of the Holy Prophet was the equivalent of tormenting the Holy Prophet himself.

Since Mu'awiya did torment these pious people, he was, according to the explicit wordings of the verse, definitely accursed in this world and in the hereafter.

(4) In sura Mu'min (The Believer), Allah says:

"The day on which their excuse shall not benefit the unjust, and for them is a curse and for them is an evil abode." (40:52)

(5) In the sura Hud, He says:

"Now surely the curse of Allah is on the unjust." (11:18)

(6) In the sura Al-A'raf (The Elevated Places) Allah says:

"Then a crier will cry out among them that the curse of Allah is on the unjust." (7:44)

Similarly, in many other verses revealed about the unjust ones, it is clear that every unjust one is accursed. I do not think any of you would deny the open injustices perpetrated by Mu'awiya.

So the very fact that he was unjust proves that he deserved Allah's curse in the light of these clear indications we too can curse the one who deserves Allah's curse.

(7) In the sura Nisa (The Women) Allah says:

"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is Hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement." (4:93)

This Holy verse explicitly says that if a man kills a single believer intentionally, he deserves Allah's curse and his abode is in Hell. Wasn't Mu'awiya associated with the murder of believers? Did he not order the killing of Hajar Ibn Adi and his seven companions? Did he not order that Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Hasan Al-Ghanzi be buried alive?

Ibn Asakir and Yaqub Ibn Sufyan in their Histories; Baihaqi in his Dala'il; Ibn Abdu'l-Bar in Isti'ab; and Ibn Athir in Kamil have reported that Hajar Ibn Adi was one of the eminent companions who, along with seven companions was brutally murdered by Mu'awiya. Their crime was refusing to curse ‘Ali.

Imam Hasan was the elder grandson of the Holy Prophet. Was he not included in Ashab al-Kisa (people of the mantle)? Was he not one of the two leaders of the youths of Paradise and a believer of exalted rank?

According to the reports of Mas'udi, Ibn Abdu'l-Bar, Abu'l-Faraj Ispahani, Tabaqa of Muhammad Ibn Sa'd, Tadhkira of Sibt Ibn Jauzi, and other accredited ulama’ of the Sunnis, Mu'awiya sent poison to Asma' Ju'da and promised her that if she killed Hasan Ibn ‘Ali, he would give her 100,000 dirhams and would marry her to his son Yazid.

After the martyrdom of Imam Hasan, he gave her 100,000 dirhams but refused to marry her to Yazid. Would you hesitate to call Mu'awiya accursed? Is it not a fact that in the Battle of Siffin the great companion of the Holy Prophet, Ammar Yasir, was martyred by Mu'awiya's order?

All your prominent ulama’ say with one accord that the Holy Prophet said to Ammar Yasir: "It will not be long before you will be killed by a rebellious and misguided group."

Have you any doubt that thousands of devout believers were killed by Mu'awiya's subordinates? Wasn't the pure and valiant warrior, Malik Ashtar, poisoned by Mu'awiya's order? Can you deny that Mu'awiya's chief officials, Amr Ibn As and Mu'awiya Ibn Khadij, brutally martyred the Commander of the Faithful's governor, the pious Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr?

Not content with that, they put his body into the carcass of a donkey and set it on fire. If I were to give you the details about the believers killed by Mu'awiya and his officials, it would require not one night, but several.

The greatest atrocity was that of Busr Ibn Artat who killed thousands of believers on Mu'awiya's orders.

Abu'l-Faraj Ispahani and Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Ibn Khallikan, Ibn Asakir and Tabari in their histories; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.I, and many others of your notable ulama’ have written that Mu'awiya ordered Busr to attack San'a and Yemen from Medina and Mecca. He gave a similar order to Zuhak Ibn Qais Al-Fahri and others. Abu'l-Faraj reports it in these words:

"Whoever from the companions and Shi’as of ‘Ali is found should be killed; even women and children should not be spared." With these strict orders, they set out with a force of 3000 and attacked Medina, San'a', Yemen, Ta'if, and Najran. When they reached Yemen, the governor, Ubaidullah Ibn Abbas, was out of the city. They entered his house and slaughtered his two sons Sulayman and Dawud in the lap of their mother.

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol.I, p.121, that in this raid 30,000 people were killed, excluding those who were burnt alive.

Among the many clear proofs that Mu'awiya was an infidel and deserved damnation was his public rejection of the Commander of the Faithful and his ordering the people to recite imprecations against the Holy Imam in their qunuts (supplication in daily prayers). This fact is acknowledged by both you and us.

Even the historians of other nations have recorded that this vile practice was openly pursued and that many people were put to death because they did not utter the curses. This outrage was discontinued by the Umayya Caliph, ‘Umar ibn Abdu'l-Aziz.

Obviously, one who curses the brother of the Holy Prophet, the husband of Fatima, the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and who orders others to do it is definitely damned. This fact has been recorded by all your eminent ulama’ in their authentic books.

Dailami in his Firdaus, Muslim Ibn Hajjaj in his Sahih, Muhammad Ibn Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul, Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, Hakim in his Mustadrak, Khatib Khawarizmi in his Manaqib, Abraham Hamwaini in his Fara'id, Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib, Imamu'l-haram in his Dhakha'iru'l-Uquba, Ibn Hajar in his Sawa'iq, and your other prominent ulama’ have, in slightly different words, reported that the Holy Prophet said: "One who reviles ‘Ali, really reviles me; who reviles me, really reviles Allah."

Dailami in his Firdaus, Sulayman Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda have reported that the Holy Prophet said: “One who gives pain to ‘Ali, really gives pain to me, and the curse of Allah is upon him who causes pain to me." Ibn Hajar Makki in his Sawa'iq narrates a hadith concerning the consequence to one who curses against any of the progeny of the Holy Prophet.

He reports that the Holy Prophet said: "If anyone curses my Ahlul Bayt, there is nothing for him but exclusion from Islam. If anyone injures me concerning my Ahlul Bayt, may Allah's curse be upon him."

Therefore Mu'awiya was certainly cursed. As reported by Ibn Athir in his Kamil, Mu'awiya used to curse ‘Ali, the grandsons of the Holy Prophet, Hasan and Husain and also Abbas and Malik Ashtar in the qunut of his daily prayers.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal reports in his Musnad from a number of sources that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "If any one injures ‘Ali he shall be treated as a Jew or Christian on the Day of Judgement." Certainly you must know that it is one of the tenets of Islam that to call Allah and the Holy Prophet by ill names leads to infidelity.

Muhammad Ibn Ganji Shafi'i in his Kifayatu't-Talib, part X, reports that once Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Sa'id Ibn Jabir saw on the brink of Zamzam a group of Syrians railing at ‘Ali. They went to them and said:

"Who among you was abusing the Holy Prophet of Allah?" They replied: "None of us was abusing the Holy Prophet of Allah." Then they said: "Well, who among you was abusing ‘Ali?" They said: "Yes, we have been abusing ‘Ali."

Then Abdullah and Sa'id said: "You should bear witness that we heard the Holy Prophet saying to ‘Ali, 'One who abuses you really abuses me; one who abuses me, really abuses Allah. If someone abuses Allah, He will throw him headlong into the fire of Hell.'"

Sheikh: Is it proper for a man of your caliber to condemn such an able and dignified companion of the Holy Prophet? Is it not a fact that Allah Almighty revealed a number of verses in praise of the companions of the Holy Prophet and gave them the good tidings of their deliverance?

And Khalu'l-Mu'minin Mu'awiya, who was definitely a distinguished companion, deserved the praise contained in the Holy verse. Doesn't insulting the companions amount to insulting Allah and the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: Perhaps you have forgotten what I have already told you on previous nights. No one denies that verses have been revealed in praise of the companions. But if you understand the meaning of the sahaba or companions, you will admit that the verses revealed in praise of the companions are not generally applicable to all. We cannot regard all of them as entirely pure.

Respected man! You know full well that "sahaba" literally means the joining together of persons. So it may mean living together or, as is commonly understood, helping or giving assistance to others.

According to Arab lexicography, the Qur'an, and the hadith, a companion of the Holy Prophet refers to one who has spent his life in the company of the Holy Prophet, whether he was a Muslim or an infidel. So your interpretation that all the companions deserve Paradise is not correct. This contradicts common sense as well as the hadith.

I will submit additional Qur'anic verses and authentic hadith from Sunni scholars so that you will not be mistaken about the word "companion." This word was used for all companions, whether they were Muslims or not.

(1) In the sura Najm (the Star), Allah says to the Polytheists:

"Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray." (53:2)

(2) In the sura of Saba (Sheba), Allah says:

"Say: I exhort you only to one thing, that you rise up for Allah's sake in pairs and singly, then ponder: your companion is not possessed." (34:46)

(3) In the sura of Kahf (The Cave), Allah says:

"and said he to his companion while he disputed with him: I have greater wealth than you and am mightier in followers." (18:34)

(4) In the same sura, Allah says:

"His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a sperm drop, then He made you a perfect man." (18:37)

(5) In the sura of A'raf (The Elevated Places), Allah says:

"Do they not reflect that their companion had not unsoundness in mind? He is only a plain warner." (7:184)

(6) In the sura of An'am (The Cattle), Allah says:

"Say: Shall we call on that besides Allah, which does not benefit us nor harm us, and shall we be returned back on our heels after Allah has guided us, like him whom the devils have made to fall down perplexed on the earth. He has companions who call him to the right way, (saying): 'Come to us.' Say: Surely the guidance of Allah, that is the (true) guidance, and we are commanded that we should submit to the Lord of the worlds." (6:71)

(7) In the sura of Yusuf (Joseph) He says: (Yusuf addressing his two fellow prisoners who were polytheists)

"O my two Companions of the prison! Are many lords better or Allah, the One, the Supreme?" (12:39)

These are a few verses, which I have quoted by way of example. It is clear that the words "sahaba," "sahib," "musahib" and "ashab" have no special relationship to Muslims. They are used in reference to Muslims and polytheists alike.

As I have said, a man who has a social dealing with another man is called his musahib or ashab. The companions of the Holy Prophet refer to those who had social dealings with him.

Certainly among the companions of the Holy Prophet and among those who sat in his company, were all sorts of people, good and bad, believers as well as hypocrites. The verses revealed in praise of the companions cannot be attributed to all of them. They refer only to the good companions.

It is also true that none of these exalted prophets of the past had companions as distinguished as those of our Holy Prophet. For instance, the companions of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain were such as stood the test of time. They helped the Holy Prophet and were firm in their resolve.

These men, both during the life time of the Holy Prophet and after his death, caused great tumult among the people. One such man was Mu'awiya, whom the Holy Prophet cursed in his own time. After the death of the Holy Prophet, when Mu'awiya got an opportunity, he rose in revolt in the name of seeking vengeance for Uthman's murder and caused the blood shed of many Muslims.

In this slaughter, many respected companions of the Holy Prophet, like Ammar Yasir, were martyred. The Holy Prophet himself foretold his martyrdom. I have already mentioned some hadith regarding this event.

There are many verses in the Holy Qur'an and hadith in praise of distinguished companions and pious believers. And there are also many verses and hadith condemning those companions who were sinners.

Sheikh: How can you claim that the companions of the Holy Prophet caused social disturbances?

Well-Wisher: This is not merely my claim. Allah Almighty in the sura of Ahlul Imran (the House of Imran) says:

"If then he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?" (3:144)

Apart from this and other verses of the Holy Qur'an, your own ulama’, including Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Asakir, Yaqub Ibn Sufyan, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abdu'l-Bar, and others have recorded a number of reports and hadith concerning the condemnation of some of the companions. I will refer to only two hadith.

Bukhari reports from Sahl Ibn Sa'd and Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud that the Holy Prophet of Allah said, "I shall be waiting for you at the fountain of Kauthar. When a group of you goes astray from my way, I will say, 'O Allah! These were my companions!' Then a reply from Him will come to me: 'You do not know what innovations they introduced after you.'"

Again Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Tabrani in his Kabir, and Abu Nasr Sakhri in his Ibana narrate from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said: "I want to save you from the chastisement of Hell. I ask you to fear Hell and to make no changes in the religion of Allah. When I die and am separated from you, I shall be present at the Fountain of Kauthar.

Whoever reaches me there is saved. At the end of time when I find a large number of people caught in divine chastisement, I shall say: 'O Allah! These are the people of my Community.' The reply shall come, 'Verily, these people returned to their old creed after you.'" According to Tabrani's report in Kabir, the reply shall be: "You do not know what innovations they introduced after you. They adopted their former religion of ignorance."

You insist that Mu'awiya and Yazid are Muslims even though their many atrocities are recorded in your own books. Some of the Sunni ulama’ have written complete books in their condemnation, but you stubbornly insist that they were praiseworthy and that Abu Talib a sincere believer was an infidel!

It is quite evident that this foolish talk is the product of enmity against the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali. You try to refute the arguments which prove the infidelity and hypocrisy of Mu'awiya and Yazid. And yet you reject Abu Talib's open pronouncements regarding his belief in Allah and the Holy Prophet.

Is it not a fact that the Holy Prophet's Ahlul Bayt have said that Abu Talib was a believer and that he died a believer? Has not Asbagh Ibn Nabuta, a highly trusted man, narrated from the Commander of the Faithful that he said, "I swear by Allah that my father, Abu Talib, my grandfather, Abdu'l-Muttalib Hashim, and Abdu'l-Manaf never worshipped idols."

Is it proper that you should reject the statements of ‘Ali and the Holy Ahlul Bayt and give credence to the statements of the cursed Mughira, Amawis, Kharijis, Nasibis, and other enemies of the Commander of the Faithful?

Moreover, many of your ulama’, including Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, have written that one day Abu Talib came to the mosque and saw that the Holy Prophet was offering prayers. ‘Ali was offering prayers on the right side of the Holy Prophet.

Abu Talib ordered his son Ja'far (Tayyar) who was with him and had not yet embraced Islam, "Stand on the side of your cousin and perform the prayers with him." Ja'far moved forward and, standing on the left side of the Holy Prophet, began to say his prayers. At that time Abu Talib composed these lines of poetry:

"Verily ‘Ali and Ja'far are my strength and solace in my distress and disappointment. O ‘Ali and Ja'far! Never leave the company of your cousin and my nephew, but help him. I swear that I will never leave the Holy Prophet. Can anyone leave the company of a Prophet of such noble family?"

So it is the unanimous view of your own ulama’ that Ja'far's embracing Islam and his performing the prayers with the Holy Prophet were at the order of Abu Talib.

"When Abu Talib died, and I informed the Holy Prophet of Allah about it, he wept bitterly. Then he said to me, 'Go and wash his body in preparation for burial, wrap his body in a shroud, and bury him. May Allah bless him and have mercy upon him!"

Is it permitted by Islam to perform the burial rituals for a polytheist? Is it right for us to say that the Holy Prophet invoked the blessings of Allah upon an infidel and a polytheist? The Holy Prophet did not leave his house for several days and continued praying to Allah for Abu Talib's eternal peace.

If you consult the Tadhkira of Sibt Ibn Jauzi, p.6 you will see what the Commander of the Faithful said in his eulogy for his father. "O Abu Talib! You were a haven for the seeker of refuge, a rain of mercy for dry lands, and a light which penetrated the darkness. Your death has toppled the pillars of safety.

Now the real Benefactor has bestowed mercy upon you. Allah Almighty has attached you to His Court. Verily, you were the best uncle of the Holy Prophet."

Can it be believed that a man who was the embodiment of monotheism would write such a eulogy for a person who died an infidel?

Sheikh: If Abu Talib was a believer, why did he not reveal his faith as his brothers, Hamza and Abbas did?

Well-Wisher: There was a great difference between Abbas, Hamza, and Abu Talib. Hamza was so fearless and formidable that all Meccans dreaded him. His embracing Islam proved a great help to the Holy Prophet.

Abbas, however, did not announce his Islam immediately. Ibn Abdu'l-Bar writes in his Isti'ab that Abbas embraced Islam while he was in Mecca, but he concealed his faith from the people. When the Holy Prophet migrated from Mecca, Abbas also intended to be with him. But the Holy Prophet wrote to him that his stay in Mecca would be useful to him (the Holy Prophet).

Accordingly, he remained in Mecca and used to send the Holy Prophet news from there. The idolaters brought him with them to the Battle of Badr. When the infidels were defeated, he was taken prisoner. On the day of the conquest of Khaibar he was finally allowed to reveal his faith.

Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.56, p.226 reports from the Dhakha'iru'l-Uquba of Imamu'l-Haram Abu Ja'far Ahmad Ibn Abdullah Tabari Shafi'i, who reports from Faza'il of Abu'l-Qasim Ilahi that scholars know that Abbas had embraced Islam in the beginning but that he kept it secret. In the Battle of Badr, when he came along with the infidels, the Holy Prophet told his men:

"Whoever sees Abbas should not kill him because he unwillingly accompanied the infidels. He was ready to migrate, but I wrote to him that he should remain there and give me information about the idolaters." On the day Abu Rafi'i informed the Holy Prophet that Abbas proclaimed his acceptance of Islam, the Holy Prophet set Abu Rafi'i free.

If Abu Talib had revealed his faith, all of the Quraish and the entire Arab nation would have united against the Bani Hashim. Abu Talib understood the expedience of concealing his Islam. He pretended to be loyal to the Quraish in order to thwart the activities of the enemy.

So long as Abu Talib remained alive the same condition continued, and the Holy Prophet was protected. But at the death of Abu Talib, the Angel Gabriel appeared before the Holy Prophet and said: "Now you should leave Mecca. After Abu Talib, you have no helper here."

Sheikh: Was the Islam of Abu Talib known during the time of the Holy Prophet of Allah, and did the community believe in it?

Well-Wisher: Yes, it was commonly known to the people and they pronounced his name with full reverence.

Sheikh: How is it possible that during the time of the Holy Prophet a thing was so much spoken of and commonly known to all, but after a period of thirty years, a contrary view gained credence because of a false hadith?

Well-Wisher: This was not a unique instance. Often what was accepted during the time of the Holy Prophet completely changed its form after a few years because of a forged hadith. Other religious orders and practices in force during the life of the Prophet were abandoned after some years due to the influence of the people.

Well-Wisher: There are many examples; two should suffice to make my point. I will discuss mut'a (temporary marriage) and hajj nisa. Both sects agree that these two practices were common during the time of the Prophet. Moreover, they were practiced during Abu Bakr's caliphate and also during part of ‘Umar's caliphate. But Caliph ‘Umar brought about a complete reversal of the Qur'anic order.

He said, "Two mut'as were in effect during the time of the Holy Prophet. I now decree both of them unlawful and will punish those who engage in this practice."

What was made lawful by Allah was suddenly abrogated. ‘Umar's decree was so widely promulgated and so blindly followed that the original law soon fell into oblivion. Even today many of our Sunni brothers regard mut'a as an innovation of the Shi’as.

If ‘Umar's whim could overturn the clear ordinance of Allah and the historical fact that mut'a was practiced, can you doubt that Abu Talib's well known belief could also be denied?

Sheikh: Are you saying that millions of Muslims have violated the injunctions of the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet? Remember, the whole world calls us Sunnis, i.e., followers of the sunna. The Shi’as are called Rafizis, i.e., those who stray from the sunna of the Prophet.

Well-Wisher: In reality the Shi’as are Sunnis, that is, they follow the Holy Qur'an and the Sunna of the Holy Prophet. You people are Rafizis because you violate the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and the commands of the Prophet.

Sheikh: This is strange indeed! You have transformed millions of pure Muslims into Rafizis! Can you advance any argument to support this?

Well-Wisher: I have already told you during previous nights that the Holy Prophet instructed us that after him we should follow the Holy Qur'an and his progeny. But you people deliberately abandoned the progeny of the Prophet and followed others. You rejected the practices of the Holy Prophet. You left those people by order of your two sheikhs and then call the real followers of the Sunna of the Holy Prophet Rafizis.

Among such orders there is another explicit injunction in the Holy Qur'an which says,

"And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Apostle and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the way fairer." (8:41)

The Holy Prophet observed this order and gave khums (1/5) of the wealth acquired from the enemy to his relatives and kinsmen. But you people opposed this practice.

The practice of mut'a is another case in point. It was in accordance with Allah's command. It was sanctioned by the Prophet and his companions. The practice continued during Abu Bakr's caliphate and also during a part of ‘Umar's caliphate. But at the command of ‘Umar you people have made unlawful what Allah made lawful. Moreover, you have rejected the Sunna of the Holy Prophet. And yet you call yourselves Sunnis and call us Rafizis.

Caliph ‘Umar himself did not advance any reason for his revoking the divine order. The Sunni ulama’ have tried in vain to prove that Caliph ‘Umar's decision was just.

Sheikh: Can you prove the lawfulness of mut'a? Can you prove that Caliph ‘Umar violated the Qur'anic injunction and the Sunna of the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: The strongest proof is furnished by the Holy Qur'an. In the sura of Nisa (The Women) Allah says:

"...then as to those by whom you benefited (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." (4:24)

Obviously the Holy Qur'an's command is obligatory forever unless it is abrogated by the Qur'an, itself. Since it has not been abrogated, this command holds good forever.

Sheikh: How is this verse not related to permanent wedlock? It is this same verse that gives instruction about paying back dowry.

Well-Wisher: You have confused the main point. Your own prominent ulama’, like Tabari in his Tafsir al-Kabir, part V and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir al-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, part III, have confirmed that this verse refers to mut'a.

Apart from the explicit interpretation of your ulama’ and commentators, you are also aware that throughout the entire sura of Nisa, several kinds of marriage and wedlock have been mentioned: nika (permanent marriage), mut'a (temporary marriage), and marriage with mulk al-Yamin (servants).

For permanent marriage the Holy Qur'an says in the sura of Nisa:

"Then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then only one or what your right hands possess." (4:3)

About Mulk al-yamin (servants), Allah says:

"And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are sprung the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters and give them their dowries justly." (4:25)

The command in verse 4 of sura Nisa to the effect that: "...as to those by whom you benefitted (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." was for mut'a, or temporary marriage. It could not be for permanent wedlock, for otherwise, it would mean that in the same chapter the decree regarding permanent wedlock has been repeated twice, which is against the rule, and if it is for mut'a, then it evidently is a permanent and separate decree.

Second, not only Shi’as but all Muslims agree that mut'a was practiced during the early days of Islam. The distinguished companions practiced it in the time of the Holy Prophet. If this verse refers to permanent wedlock then which is the verse for mut'a? Evidently this is the verse regarding mut'a, which your own commentators have accepted. There is no verse in the Holy Qur'an which abrogates this command.

It is reported in Sahih of Bukhari and the Musnad of Imam Ibn Hanbal from Abu Raja on the authority of Imran Ibn Hasin that "...the verse of mut'a was revealed in the Book of Allah. So we acted in accordance with it during the time of the Holy Prophet. No verse was revealed to make it unlawful, nor did the Holy Prophet ever prohibit it." One man decided to change this law. Bukhari says that the man was ‘Umar.

Muslim in his Sahih, part I, in the chapter of Nikatu'l-Mut'a, says "Hasan Halwa'i reported to us that he was told by Abdu'r-Razzaq, who was informed by Ibn Jarih, who was told by 'Ata that Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari came to Mecca for the Umra and they went to him at his residence. People asked him many questions.

When they came to the question of mut'a he said, 'Yes, we used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.'" Also in the same book in part I, in the chapter of al-Mut'a Bi'l-Hajj wa'l-Umra, it is narrated on the authority of Abu Nazara that he said: "I was in the company of Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari when a man came and said:

“There is a difference of opinion between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair concerning the two mut'as, Mut'atu'n-Nisa and Mut'atu'l-Hajj.' Then Jabir said, 'We have performed both of these during the time of the Holy Prophet. Thereafter, when ‘Umar forbade it, we could not do it.'"

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, part I, p.25, narrates Abu Nazara's report in another way. Also both narrate another report from Jabir that he said: "In the days of the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr, we used to practice mut'a for the consideration of a handful of dates and flour until ‘Umar forbade it in the case of Amr Ibn Harith."

Hamidi, in his Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahihain, narrates from Abdullah Ibn Abbas that he said: "We used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet. When ‘Umar was caliph, he said that 'Allah Almighty made lawful whatever He liked for His Holy Prophet. Now he is dead, and the Qur'an takes his place. So when you begin the Hajj or the Umra, you should complete them as Allah has ordered you. You should repent of and abstain from mut'a. Bring him who has practiced mut'a to me so that I may stone him.'"

There are many such reports in your own reliable books showing that mut'a was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet. The companions practiced it until ‘Umar made it unlawful.

Besides these reports, some of the companions, like Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id Ibn Jabir and Sa'd have recited the verse of mut'a in this way, "And as such of them you had mut'a with until such time as was fixed."

Jarullah Zamakhshari reports in his Kashshaf from Ibn Abbas and also Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir al-Kabir and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir al-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol.III, writing about this Holy verse and Imam Nuwi in his Sharh al-Muslim, chapter I, Nikatu'l-Mut'a report from Nazari that Qazi Ayaz stated that "Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, the writer of wahi (i.e., recorder of revelations), used to recite this verse in the same way, that is, 'until such time as has been fixed.'"

Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, after quoting the statement of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Ibn Abbas, said: "The community did not reject their recitation of the verse in this way, so what we have said has been accepted through consensus." Again on the next page he argues in this way: "This reading evidently proves that mut'a had the sanction of religion. We have no difference of opinion that mut'a was permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet."

Sheikh: Can you prove that it was lawful during the days of the Holy Prophet but was not repealed later?

Well-Wisher: There is plenty of proof that it was not annulled. The most convincing argument is that mut'a had been permitted from the time of the Holy Prophet until the middle of the caliphate of ‘Umar.

Caliph ‘Umar's own statement has been generally reported by your ulama’. They have written that he went to the pulpit and said, "In the time of the Prophet two mut'as were permitted. I make both of them unlawful, and if any one does it, I will punish him."

Sheikh: What you say is correct, but my point is that there are many orders, which were current earlier in the time of the Holy Prophet but were repealed later. Mut'a was also permitted in the beginning, but later it was forbidden.

Well-Wisher: Since the basis and foundation of religion is the Holy Qur'an, if any ordinance is present in the Holy Qur'an and is abrogated, its abrogation must also be present in it. Now please let me know where in the Holy Qur'an this order has been repealed.

"Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for surely they are not blameworthy." (22:6)

This verse lays down two conditions for conjugal relations: marriage or intercourse with slaves. So this verse proves that the ordinance of mut'a has been repealed.

Well-Wisher: This verse does not in any way prove that mut'a was repealed; it confirms it. The woman united by mut'a is the real wife of the man. Had she not been his real wife, Allah would not have ordered her mehr (dowry) to be paid.

Moreover, the sura of The Believers was revealed while the Prophet was in Mecca, the sura of Women while he was in Medina. Obviously the Meccan chapters preceded the Medinan chapter. Can verse A abrogate verse B, if verse A came before B?

For instance, Jarullah Zamakhshari, in his Tafsir al-Kashshaf regarding Abdullah Ibn Abbas's statement that the verse of mut'a was one of the clear ordinances of the Holy Qur'an, says that this verse was not repealed. Imam Malik Ibn Anas also said that the permissibility of mut'a had not been repealed.

Mulla Sa'idu'd-din Taftazani in Sharh al-Maqasid, Burhanu'd-din Hanafi in his Hidaya, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Fathu'l-Bari and others also have reported the statement and verdict of Malik who says: "Mut'a is lawful. It is permitted by religion. Its lawfulness, as confirmed by Ibn Abbas, is quite well known and most of his companions from Yeman and Mecca have practiced it.

At another place he says: "Mut'a is lawful since it has been permitted and its lawfulness and permissibility hold good unless it is repealed." You will notice that until Malik's death there was no evidence that the ordinance of mut'a had been annulled.

Moreover, your prominent commentators, like Zamakhshari, Baghawi, and Imam Tha'labi have adhered to the position of Ibn Abbas and other distinguished companions and have believed in the lawfulness of mut'a.

Sheikh: Since there are no provisions for a woman united by mut'a, such as inheritance, divorce, after divorce (waiting period) and maintenance, as are necessary for a wife, she cannot be a real wife.

Well-Wisher: A woman joined with a man through mut'a is protected by all the provisions of any wife except those which have been reasonably excluded. Mut'a is a kind of nika (marriage), which entitles a woman to wifehood. Of course for the convenience of the community and to save them from lawlessness, some of its conditions and formalities have been waived.

As for its conditions, first, it is not proved that inheritance is a necessary condition of marriage. Many women, in spite of being wives, do not receive an inheritance from their husbands. For example, disobedient wives or those who murder are deprived of inheritance.

Second, it is not definitely established whether a woman united by mut'a is deprived of her right of inheritance. The jurists differ in their opinions about it, and such differences exist among you also.

Third, the Imamiyya ulama’ unanimously hold the view that a woman united by mut'a must also observe 'idda (waiting period before re-marriage). Its shortest period has been fixed as 45 days. If the husband dies, she should observe the usual 'idda of four months and ten days, whether she had had sexual intercourse with her husband or not, or whether she has passed the age of menstruation or not.

Fourth, the right of maintenance is not a necessary condition attached to marriage. There are a number of wives who are not entitled to maintenance, such as those who are disobedient or who murder their husbands.

Fifth, the expiration of the agreed upon period is itself her divorce. Similarly, with the consent of her husband, she may be divorced before the expiration date.

Therefore none of the conditions that you have mentioned has any force. A renowned Shi’as scholar, Allama Jamalu'd-Din Hilli (Hasan Ibn Yusuf Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Mutahhar), has given in detail the same arguments in reply to the views of your prominent ulama’. I have referred to them briefly. Anyone who wants to study it in detail may consult Allama Hilli's Mabahithat al-Sunniyya wa Ma'rifat al-Nussairiyya.

Sheikh: Besides the Holy verse there are also a large number of hadith which say that the ordinance concerning mut'a had been abrogated during the time of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Kindly let us know about that order of abrogation.

Sheikh: It has been narrated with some variations. Some reporters say that it was decreed on the day of the conquest of Khaibar, some say it happened on the day of conquest of Mecca, some reports say that it was on the occasion of the Last Pilgrimage, and some say that it was on the day of Tabuk. Others, however, are of the opinion that the order of nullity was revealed on the occasion of Umratu'l-Qaza (The Farewell Pilgrimage).

Well-Wisher: The contradictory reports clearly prove that there was no such order of abrogation. And how can those reports be relied upon when, on the contrary, there are many hadith reported in Sahih al-Sitta, Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahihain, Jam' al-Bainu's-Sahih al-Sitta, Musnad, etc, from distinguished companions which prove that this verse was not abrogated until the caliphate of ‘Umar.

The most compelling argument that your own ulama’ have themselves cited is the statement of Caliph ‘Umar, who said: "I make both those two mut'as which were current in the days of the Holy Prophet, unlawful." Had there been any verse, or order of the Holy Prophet, the caliph would have said:

"According to the instructions of the Holy Prophet, which is supported by the Qur'anic verse, if any one committed the unlawful act in violation of the abrogated ordinance, I will punish him." Such a statement would have been more impressive for the people. But he merely said: “Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet, I make them unlawful."

If, however, your claim is correct and the verse of mut'a was abrogated, why didn't the pupils of the Holy Prophet, like Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Imran Ibn Hashim and other companions act upon it? Your own great traditionists and historians, including Bukhari and Muslim, have recorded this fact. All these things clearly prove that from the time of the Holy Prophet to the caliphate of ‘Umar the companions followed this ordinance.

So it is clear that mut'a shall continue to be lawful forever. Abu Isa Muhammad Ibn Sawratu't-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, which is regarded as one of the six Sahih by you, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, PART II, p.95, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul have reported that a Syrian man asked Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar Ibn Khattab what he considered about Mut'a al-Nisa. He said: "Of course, it is lawful."

The man said again, "But your father, the caliph, forbade the people to do it." He said, "It was ordered by the Holy Prophet; so if it has been prohibited by my father that order cannot supersede the order of the Holy Prophet. I am the follower of the Holy Prophet's order."

For the reports which have been narrated, perhaps people later forged hadith in order to support Caliph ‘Umar's statement. The matter is too clear to call for any further elucidation. The fact is that you have no real evidence for the unlawfulness of mut'a except the statement of Caliph ‘Umar.

Sheikh: Caliph ‘Umar's statement in itself is the strongest evidence for Muslims, and they must follow it. If he had not heard it from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said that.

Well-Wisher: Is Caliph ‘Umar's statement so compelling that Muslims must follow it? I have not seen a single hadith in your books, in which the Holy Prophet said that ‘Umar Ibn Khattab's statement was a confirmed source or that Muslims should follow it.

On the other hand your books are filled with reliable hadith saying that we should follow the descendants of the Holy Prophet, particularly ‘Ali. I have referred to some of these hadith on previous nights. The Ahlul Bayt of the Holy Prophet have said that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated.

You said that had Caliph ‘Umar not heard about the order of cancellation from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said what he did. But this is easily disproved. First, if Caliph ‘Umar had heard of the cancellation of the order of mut'a from the Holy Prophet, he should have spoken about it during the life of the Holy Prophet up to the period of his own caliphate.

This would have been especially important since he saw prominent companions had been practicing it, and it was his duty to tell the people that the practice of mut'a had been annulled. Why did he not perform the duty of prevention of evil?

Second, the practice, which had been current among the community by order of the Holy Prophet, could only be nullified by the Holy Prophet. There should have been no delay in this case. Does it stand to reason that if an order for the Community had been circulated and was later abrogated, would the Holy Prophet have spoken about it to no one except ‘Umar?

And would it have made sense that ‘Umar would not have told anybody about it until late in his own caliphate? During all this period when the community continued to follow this (so-called) abrogated order, did no responsibility lie with ‘Umar?

You say that the prohibition of "nullified and irreligious” practice could not be made known to others and therefore the community continued to follow it. Can anybody else except the Holy Prophet be held responsible for not proclaiming the abrogation of an order, having told only ‘Umar of it?

Is it not infidelity to say that the Holy Prophet neglected to perform his mission and that the community because of its ignorance, continued acting upon an abrogated order for a long time?

Third, if the order of mut'a had been annulled during the time of the Holy Prophet and ‘Umar had heard of this from the Holy Prophet, ‘Umar could have said when he prohibited it that he had himself heard the Holy Prophet say that the practice of mut'a had been banned.

Obviously, if he had referred to the Holy Prophet's statement, the community would have been much impressed by it. But he said, "During the time of the Holy Prophet, two mut'as were permitted, but I make them unlawful. Now I will stone those who do it." Is it not the duty of the Holy Prophet to declare things lawful or unlawful? Or, can it be the right of a caliph who has been appointed by the people?

I don't understand on what basis ‘Umar declared unlawful what Allah made lawful. How strange it is that the Holy Prophet never said that he made a certain thing lawful or unlawful. Whenever he announced any order, he said that Allah had ordered him to convey it to the people. How bold ‘Umar is when he says: "Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet. I make both of them unlawful. I will punish those who commit those acts."

Sheikh: Certainly you are aware that some of our scholars of high learning believe that since the Holy Prophet was a mujtahid (authority) in the matter of religious orders, another mujtahid, by virtue of his own findings, may set aside the former order. It was on this basis that ‘Umar said, "I make those two things unlawful."

Well-Wisher: In an attempt to set right one wrong, you perpetrate many others. Does ijtihad have any significance in contradicting an injunction of the Holy Qur’an? Is not your statement quite absurd and opposed to the Qur'anic verses?

Allah Almighty says in the sura of Jonah:

"Say: It is not proper for me that I should change it myself. I follow naught but what is revealed to me." (10:15)

If it is true that the Holy Prophet could not make any changes in religious order unless he was ordered by Allah to do so, how could ‘Umar, who had no knowledge of revelation, have the authority to make unlawful what Allah had made lawful?

In the sura of Najm (The Star) Allah says:

"Nor does he speak out of caprice. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)

In the sura of Ahqaf (The Sand Dunes), Allah says:

"Say: I am not the first of the apostles, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I do not follow anything but what has been revealed to me." (46:9)

Obedience to the Holy Prophet is obligatory. No one, ‘Umar or anyone else, has the right to interfere with divine orders and make unlawful what Allah made lawful.